HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-14; City Council; 13652; RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSED CITYWIDE TRAIL SYSTEM'
I v Y OF CARLSBAD -
c 0 DEPT AB#-= .rl U MTG. 05/14/96 . (d
CITY CITYWIDE TRAIL SYSTEM DEPT. NPLNIFIL E 0
CITY RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSED
w c .rl RECOMMENDED ACTION: 5
7-4 3
E
U 1
aJ k
"I 0
w CH
U a
m
-0-
Urn Url al *rl
-4 U ka
mal
aln
a -a
Ch a0 w
am
au ala,
c=l
n
$;
mal aha) m nw
Vl bal 4k IS am mcd
*E a,
0 z% g2 .rl cd UP S rlh Oh mo am d .rl 3 55 ala U ac ocd a cbbn
4 .rl G
.rl a Uh ccd Sbo
Vk oal
APPROVE City Council Resolution No. 713 - /7 5 appropriating $25,000.00 frc General Fund Council Contingency account to update the trail portion of the Open Spac Conservation Resource Management Plan and directing staff to: 1) require develop
provide adequate security through bonds letters or credit, cash or other acceptable secu
future trail improvements; 2) return to Council for a determination of whether a measure z
be placed on the ballot authorizing the financing of a citywide trail system; and, 3) begin
formation steps for a special benefit assessment district to fund maintenance of the trail sy
ITEM EXPLANATION:
z 0 6
6
8
a
3 z
On September 26, 1995, City Council requested that staff research and report back on s8
issues related to the proposed citywide trail system, including: 1) the extent of current lo
construction opportunities and methods to ensure trail construction, 2) options for financir
land acquisition, construction and maintenance; and, 3) trail liability. The attached memora
to the City Manager, dated May 1, 1996, addresses these issues in detail. Followin!
summary of staff recommendations:
e Require developer to bond for future trail improvements - Change the currer
condition to require the developer to provide adequate security through the post
bonds, providing letters of credit, cash or other acceptable security for futur
construction improvements. Segments of trails could be completed after thc
provides a method to finance trail maintenance and liability.
e Update trail portion of the Open Space and Conservation Resource Managemen
lOSCRMP) - Due to the many conditions that have changed since the OSCRMF
accepted by City Council in 1992, update the report in the following areas: rem:
land needed for acquisition, costs for land acquisition and City-funded
improvements, and current and future maintenance costs. With the updated fin,
information, staff would return to Council with options for financing land acquisitio
construction.
8 Consider vote on financinq a citvwide trail system - Financing the acquisition of Ian
construction of trails is an issue of significance to many citizens in Carlsbad. No s
of funding is available at this time for a citywide trail system and trail expenditurc
currently projected to exceed the Proposition H limit on General Fund financing
capital project. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to revise the trail cost
return to Council with that information. Council could authorize a proposition o
November ballot for a citywide trail system.
Consider formation of assessment district - Maintenance costs for trails cann
that Council direct staff to begin initial steps toward forming a new special b
assessment district to provide funds for maintenance costs related to the trail sy
Although a vote is not mandatory, Council may authorize a separate vote to establi:
assessment district and provide for annual funding from taxpayers for trail mainten
e Maintain current insurance coveraqe - No additional insurance would be necessar
a citywide trail system. The City's liability would be no greater than our current exp
absorbed into the General Fund without impacting other services. Staff recomrr
e
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /< 65.L e
L
for other recreational uses and trails are not excluded from the City’s current insu
coverage. The City is a member of PARSAC (Public Agency Risk Sharing Autho
California), risk-management pool for general liability claims. The City would pay (
which are less than $500,000, with higher losses of up to $10 million cover1
PARSAC.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review is required for this information item.
FISCAL IMPACT
The authorization of staff to hire a consultant to update trail costs of the OSCRMP woulc
approximately $25,000 which could be funded with General Fund Council Contingency 1
Authorization of a vote for financing a citywide trail system and implementation of the pro1
citywide trial system would have the following fiscal impacts.
0 Election - The cost of an election which is included with a regular election is estir
at $5,000 to $10,000, and the estimated cost for a special election is $125,000.
0 Liability - No additional costs are associated with liability coverage.
0 Trail Financing - Many conditions have changed since the OSCRMP was accept
Council in 1992. Changed circumstances should result in cost savings, due to poi
realignment of trails and land set aside for habitat preserves. Revised cost estirnati
be available after the OSCRMP is updated.
The following costs are as estimated in the OSCRMP:
Land Acquisition (25 acres) $ 397,000
Construction of trail improvements 2,271,000
Total one time costs $ 2,668,000
In the OSCRMP, annual maintenance costs are calculated in 1991 dollars. ’
assessments would begin at $340,000.00 per year and rise to $416,000.00 at bui
The average cost per household would start at $5.70 and increase to $7.1 1 when all
are completed. Revised maintenance expenses would also be included in an Upd;
the trail portion of the OSCRMP.
EXHIBITS:
1, City Council Resolution No. 9 b - i ? 5
2. Memorandum to City Manager, dated May 1, 1996.
3. Agenda Bill 11,871, Open Space and Conservation Resource Management
DI 92-1, dated 9/1/92.
- e 0
b
l. // RESOLUTION NO. 9 6 - 1 7 5
2
3
4
5
6
7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING
STAFF TO REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO BOND FOR
FIJIWE TRAlL IMPROVEMENTS, REQUESTING
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER TO PLACE AN ADVISORY MEASURE ON
THE BALLOT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
THE UPDATE OF THE OPEN SPACE AND
CONSERVATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
8
9
WHEREAS, On September 26, 1995, City Council requested that stafl
and report back on several issues related to the proposed citywide trail system; and
10
11
12
13 construct improvements and maintain a citywide trail system; and
14 WHEREAS, certain conditions have changed sice acceptance of the (
l5 and an update of the OSCRMP is necessary and desirous and hnds are available in th
16
17
WHEREAS, in September 1992, Council accepted the Open SI
Conservation Resource Management Plan (OSCRMP) which includes plans to acq1
Fund Council Contingency Account; and
18 li WHEREAS, fbnding sources are not available for land, improvem
19 maintenance of the citywide trail system; and
20 WHEREAS, development projects that contain a proposed trail sel
21
22
required to be designed with trails; and
23
24
WHEREAS, developer hnding for trail improvements in certain projec
lost without imposing additional development conditions; and
25 ll WHEREAS, upon considering the request, the City Council considered
26
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Cou 27
relating to citywide trail system issues.
28 City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
rl
-
1 , e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
78
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That staff require developers to provide adequate security through bonds,
credit, cash or other acceptable security for fbture trail improvements t
lost trail construction opportunities.
3. That the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $25,000.00
Council Contingency Account for the update of the Open Space and Con
Resource Management Plan.
4. That staff return to Council with additional information for a determi
whether an advisory measure regarding the citywrde trails system should
on the ballot.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the 14 th day of MAY , 1996 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cdrk
(SEAL)
-2-
m e EX1
- May 1,1996
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
FINANCE DIRECTOR
COUNCIL REQUESTED INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED CITYWIDE TRAIL SYSTEM
At the City Council meeting of September 26, 1995, Council requested that staff research and
report back to Council on several issues related to the proposed citywide trail system, including:
1) the extent of current lost trail construction opportunities and methods to increase trail
construction, 2) options for financing trail land acquisition, construction, maintenance and 3)
liability issues.
This report addresses the citywide trail system only. Staff recommends that habitat management
and general open space issues be addressed separately through the City Habitat Management
Plan (HMP) and regional habitat planning. Work on the City's HMP began in 1991 and a draft
plan of the HMP was released for public review and comment in July, 1994. The draft plan was
placed on hold in the fall of 1994 to allow time for the completion of regional habitat
management policies and is expected to move forward for review later this summer. It is
expected that the majority of issues related to the financing of land acquisition and maintenance
of open space and habitat will be addressed through the City's HMP.
Following is the information requested by Council on the proposed citywide trail system.
Backmound
On September 1, 1992, City Council accepted the Open Space and Conservation Resource
Management Plan (OSCRMP), which included policies and recommendations for the proposed
citywide trail system. The OSCRMP was developed through numerous Open Space Advisory
Committee meetings, citizen workshops and public hearings. Through citizen input, trails were
identified as a primary priority in the OSCRMP. Trail goals, objectives and policies, general
alignments and trail design, and cost estimates of implementing trails were contained in the
OSCRMP.
Many residents have expressed the importance of a citywide trail system in Carlsbad. Due to
earlier citizen input, the OSCW was formally integrated into the Open Space and Conserva-
tion Element in the September 1994 General Plan update. The Open Space and Conservation
Element refers to trails as "proposed" since a method to fund trail land acquisition, maintenance
and liability had not been determined at the time the General Plan was updated.
Since Council approval of the OSCRMP, no trails have been accepted for dedication to the City
or constructed under the citywide trail program, although some private trails have been
constructed. It is a General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element policy to prohibit the
approval of projects which would eliminate trail segments of the proposed citywide trail system.
A General Plan amendment must be approved to delete a trail segment.
1
e e
I
New development projects which are located within a proposed trail alignment are currently
required to incorporate trails into the project's design. The project is then conditioned to provide
construct the trail if, prior to final map, the City does not have a financing mechanism in place
to take over maintenance and liability of the citywide trail segment.
an irrevocable offer of dedication for the trail and provides that the developer is not required to
1. Lost Trail Opportunities and Methods to Increase Trail Construction
As noted above, trails were identified as a major priority in the OSCRMP and incorporated into
the General Plan update. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan
provides that projects are not to preclude citywide trail segments, unless a General Plan
amendment is approved deleting that trail segment. Projects that contain a proposed trail
segment are required to be designed with trails and are conditioned as follows:
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable
offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for citywide
trail(s) shown on the (i.e., Tentative Map) with Open Space Lots(s) 1.
assume responsibility for maintenance and liability. If the City of Carlsbad does
not accept liability and maintenance responsibility for the Citywide Trail
System, prior to recordation of the final map, the Developer will not be required
to construct the trail(s).
If the City of Carlsbad accepts dedication of the trail easement the City shall
This condition ensures that the land is preserved in perpetuity for future trails. However, without
City acceptance of liability and maintenance responsibility, when the tentative map is finaled,
the City loses the trail construction opportunity. The City would then be responsible for future
funding of trail construction for these trail segments.
Two maps depicting the implementation status for trail segments of the proposed citywide trail
system are attached as exhibits.
Trail Implementation Status (Exhibit I) shows which of the trail segments have been
approved as part of a development project and the status of trail segments in the City's
approval process. The trail system will eventually provide almost 74 miles of trails
throughout the City.
Trail Financing Status (Exhibit 11) shows the anticipated source of funding for each segment
of the citywide trail system. Funding of trail construction for approximately 66% of the trail
system can be acquired as development occurs, if the City has a maintenance and liability
plan. The addition of the Coastal Rail Trail will bring land acquisition and trail construction
to almost 85% of the citywide system. The remaining 15% of the trail system
(approximately 12 miles) would need to be acquired and constructed with City funds.
Lost Trail Opportunities - As depicted in Exhibit 11, Trail Financing Status, the City has
already lost construction opportunities on approximately one mile of trails (Evans Pointe and
Eagle Canyon). Currently several tentative maps are pending final map and could result in
several additional miles of lost trail construction opportunities. The projects are conditioned to
2
e 0
-
provide an irrevocable offer of dedication for the trail, so the City still has the opportunity to
construct the trail at a later date, however, a funding source for trail construction would be
needed.
Methods to Increase Trail Construction - Following are three alternative methods of ensuring
that trail construction opportunities are not completely lost after tentative tract maps have been
finaled. Each of the alternatives would retain the City's standard condition requiring the
developer provide for an irrevocable offer of dedication for the trail and trail construction if the
City has a way to finance trail maintenance and liability prior to final map. The alternatives
provide a method to fund trail improvements when maps final without a City funding mechanism
for maintenance and liability.
A. Developer Provide Security to Fund Future Trail Improvements
If the City does not have a way to finance trail maintenance and liability prior to final map, the
developer would be required to provide adequate security through bonds, letters of credit, cash or
other acceptable security for the trail improvements. Developer securities would be held by the
City until a decision is reached on the financing of trail maintenance and liability. The securities
would provide a means to fund future trail construction and ensure that the land necessary for
trails is preserved in perpetuity.
B. Developer Construct Trail as a Private Open Space Amenity
This alternative would require the developer to construct the trail as a private open space amenity
if the City does not have a way to finance trail maintenance and liability prior to final map. The
private trail would not be available for use by the general public and would be the maintenance
and liability responsibility of the private community. The trail would remain a private recreation
amenity until such time as the City had a way to finance trail maintenance and liability and
accepted the dedication of the trail.
C. Developer Grade and Hydroseed Trail Area
The developer would be required to grade the trail and hydroseed the land, or provide other
erosion control measures necessary for the graded area, if the City does not have a way to
finance trail maintenance and liability prior to final map. The graded area would not be available
for use by the general public. This alternative would reduce fibre trail construction costs and
would acclimate residents to having a trail nearby since the graded area would look like a trail.
2. Options for Financing Trail Land Acquisition, Construction, and Maintenance
Estimated Costs - In September 1992, Council accepted the Open Space and Conservation
Resource Management Plan (OSCRMP). Estimated costs for both the citywide trail system and
open space were included in the OSCRMP. Following are costs as reported in the OSCW for
trails only:
Land acquisition (25 acres)
Construction of improvements
$397,000
2,271,000
Total one time costs $2,668,000
Annual maintenance costs (74 miles) Begin at $340,000- Buildout $416,000
Average cost per household Begin at $5.70 - Buildout $7.11
3
e 0
*
Changed Conditions - Many conditions have changed since the OSCRMP was accepted by
Council. Following are several conditions that have been identified:
(1) Realignment of needed land - Almost two-thirds of the land delineated in the OSCRMP for
trail acquisition is located in Zones 11 and 14. Much of the Zone 11 trails acreage
previously planned for purchase is now included in the Fieldstone Habitat Conservation Plan
and a significant reduction in land costs could be realized by a realignment of the trail
through Zone 14. It is also expected that a realignment of the needed land for purchase
would change the total cost of trail improvements.
(2) Land purchase price and improvement costs - In the plan, estimated acquisition costs for
trails averaged $15,900 per acre. The fair market price of land for trails and the cost of trail
improvements may have changed significantly since 1992.
(3) Gnatcatcher listing - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the gnatcatcher as a
threatened species and trail impacts on potential preserve areas were included in the City's
draft HMP. Although land may be set aside for preserve/trails, the City would still need to
finance the trail improvements.
(4) Legal issues - Any tax increase or new tax imposed by the City would require majority
voter approval, as recently confirmed by the recent State Supreme Court decision on
Proposition 62. In addition, changes to State Landscape and Lighting statutes may require
citizen approval of new or additional charges for benefit district services.
Financing Options- The OSCRMP suggests that the City take the issue to the residents of
Carlsbad and obtain authorization to issue debt forthe one time capital expenditures. Financing
options for consideration are:
0 General Obligation Bonds - The report recommends the use of general obligation bonds to
finance land purchase and construction improvements. Authority to sell general obligation
bonds would require the approval of 2/3 of the voters casting ballots in the election.
Certificates of Participation (COP'S) - Another financing option would utilize General Fund
money and issue COP'S. The Hosp Grove land purchase utilized this method of financing.
Annual debt service payments would need to be absorbed into the General Fund annual
operating budget, and at this time, an increase in debt service could not be absorbed without
other reductions. If the trails project costs exceeded the Proposition H General Fund $1
million limitation, voter approval would be required for this method of financing. Passage
under Proposition H is obtained by a simple majority of voters approving the expenditure of
funds.
Cost Savings - Changed circumstances should result in cost savings, due to the potential
realignment of trails and land being set aside for habitat preserves. Project costs for land
acquisition and construction of trail improvements may total less than $1 million in which case
Proposition H limitations apply. However, in light of the current political climate and recent
legal decisions, the conservative route would be to bring the issue to the voters of Carlsbad for
their approval.
4
- e e
Maintenance Options - Establishing a maintenance plan for developer-funded trails is critical to
plan in place, almost 85% of the trail system can be acquired without additional land
acquisition and approximately 66% of trail improvements will be developer funded.
Beginning trail maintenance costs are estimated at $340,000 per year, increasing to $416,000 at
buildout. The General Fund would not be able to support the increased operating costs for
maintenance of the trail system without reductions in services in other areas. Maintenance costs
related the trails could be covered by:
Forming a new special benefit assessment district, or
Increasing current assessment to residents under an existing lighting andlandscaping district.
Either option requires Council hearings and formal noticing to each resident. After formation,
annual assessments are approved by Council and placed on property tax rolls.
To form a new special benefit assessment requires several months of lead time to prepare
budgets and legal documents, allow for legal noticing and public hearings. The initial steps
toward establishing a new special benefit district to fund trail maintenance could be processed
improvements and land.
the citywide trail system. As shown in Exhibit 11, if the City has a maintenance and liability
concurrently with updating the OSCRMP and planning the financing of city-funded trail
3. Citv Liabilitv Issues
Creating a citywide trail system would not expose the City to significant additional liability. The
trail system would be consistent with the City's liability exposure for other recreational facilities
and land uses. In general, State government code provides immunity to public landowners for
injuries caused by natural conditions of unimproved public property. Immunity is provided to
public entities for injuries caused by a condition of any trail which provides access to
recreational or scenic areas and such activities as hiking.
Trail without improvements - The Tort Claims Act of the Government Code provides absolute
immunity for public entities against claims for injuries caused by natural conditions of
unimproved property. However, the City is liable for injuries resulting from substantial,
known dangerous conditions of its property. The State statute was enacted to relieve public
entities of the burden and expense of putting natural lands in a safe condition and defending
against personal injury lawsuits. It was designed to ensure that public agencies not prohibit
public access and use of the State's natural resources because of financial considerations.
Trail with improvements - The City's liability exposure is greater with the addition of
improvements to the trail. Once improvements such as paving are added to a trail, the City's
immunity becomes conditional. The City would need to design and construct improvements
consistent with the intended use of the trail and provide for adequate warning of any condition
along the trail which constitutes a hazard to health or safety. Careful research to assure a safe
trail system design, safety engineer inspections, and monitoring and maintenance of the trail
system would limit liability exposure.
5
e 8
Additional information on liabilitv - The Risk Manager previously researched the City's liability
related to land trusts for open space, trails and equestrian uses. With the addition of a citywide
trail system, City liability would be no greater than our current exposure for other recreational
uses. For detailed information on the issue of liability, see the Risk Manager reports shown as
Exhibits I11 and IV. As part of the Risk Manager's study, a survey was also taken of several
agencies with trails or open space. Each of the agencies reported very few claims and minimal
losses and advised to pay careful attention to any safety issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Require developer to provide security for future trail improvements - Staff recommends
that the current trail condition be changed to require the developer to provide adequate
security to fund future trail construction improvements (Alternative A). By requiring the
developer to post bonds, provide letters of credit, cash or other acceptable security for the
trail improvements, segments of trails could be completed after the City provides a method
to finance trail maintenance and liability. Securities would be held by the City until a
decision is reached on the financing of trail maintenance and liability. If it is determined that
funding for trail maintenance and liability is not feasible, the developer would not be
required to construct the trail and bonds would be turned back to the developer.
Update trail portion of the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan - Due
to the many conditions that have changed since the OSCRMP was accepted by City Council
in 1992, staff recommends that the report be updated in the following areas: remaining land
needed for acquisition, costs for land acquisition and City-funded trail improvements, and
current and future maintenance costs. Consultant costs are estimated at $25,000 which could
be funded with General Fund Council Contingency funds. With the updated financial
information, staff would return to Council with additional options for financing land
acquisition and construction of a citywide trail system.
Consider vote on financing a citywide trail system - Financing the acquisition of land and
construction of trails is an issue of significance to many citizens in Carlsbad. No source of
funding is available at this time for a citywide trail system and trail expenditures are
currently projected to exceed the Proposition H limit on General Fund financing for a capital
project. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to revise the trail costs and to return to
Council. If costs remain outside acceptable General Fund limits, Council could authorize a
proposition for the November ballot. The proposition would outline the costs of citywide
trails and ask for voter approval to implement the trail system. For a November vote, the
measure would need to be submitted to the County by the first week in August.
Consider formation of assessment district - Developers will provide for the majority of land
and improvements for trails if a maintenance and liability plan is in place. Maintenance
costs for a citywide trail system cannot be absorbed into the General Fund without
reductions in services in other areas. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to begin
initial steps toward forming a new special benefit assessment district. Incremental expenses
directly related to trail maintenance would be included in the assessment district and provide
an on-going revenue stream to sustain the citywide trail system.
6
t W 0
Maintain current insurance coverage - No additional insurance would be necessary with a
citywide trail system. The City's liability would be no greater than our current exposure for
other recreational uses and trails are not excluded from the City's current insurance coverage.
The City is a member of PARSAC, a risk-management pool for general liability claims. The
City would pay claims which are less than $500,000, with higher losses of up to $10 million
covered by PARSAC.
EXHIBITS:
I. Trail Implementation Status, Carlsbad Trail System, GIS 1995
11. Trail Financing Status, Carlsbad Trail System, GIS 1995
111. Open Space - Landowner LiabilityLand Trusts, memorandum from Risk Manager to
IV. Liability: Improvements and Natural Conditions of Trail, memorandum from Risk Manager
Financial Management Director, January 1 1 , 1993
to Associate Planner, September 13, 1993
File:trail financing
7
0 CARLSBA~ TRAIL SYSTE
CITY OF CARLSE
I
"-""
I.
- u CARLSBAD TRAIL SYSTEM a EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
@ TRAILS CONSTRUCTED
@ TO BE DEDICATED AND CONSTRUCTED & TRAILS APPROVED AS PART OF MASTER OR SPECIFIC PLAN
@ TRAILS IT0 BE) CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF A CITY PARK
TRAILS ARE A CONDITION OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Trail Implementation Status I 4 Not To Scale
OCitv of - GIS 1995 L 1
EXHIBIT I1
CARLSBA% TRAIL SYST
CITY OF CARLS
3 CARLSBAD TRAIL SYSTEM
7 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
@ DEVELOPER FINANCED (DEDlCATlONlCONSTRUCTlON OPPORTUNITY LOST) - 1 MILE
@ DEVELOPER FINANCED (DEDICATIONICONSTRUCTION) - 41 MILES
@ TRAIL THROUGH CITY PARK OR CITY OWNED LAND - 7 MILES
;@ CITY FINANCED ON STREET - 12 MILES
@ CITY FINANCED OFF STREET - 5 MILES
!@ COASTAL RAILTRAIL (CITY CONSTRUCT OR GRANT/DEVELOPER ENHANCE) - 7 MILES
...
3
3 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE BOUNDARY /. I
Trail Financing Status b +- Not To Scale
OCitv of Carlsbad GIS 1995 I m..MaUmh
" 0 dB EXHIBIT 111
January 11,1993
TO : FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: Risk Manager
OPEN SPACE - LANDOWNER LMBILITY LAND mum
In response to your request for information on open space and liability exposure, the considerations
for private and public landowners, as well as the highlights of land trusts is discussed below.
k Private Landowners
Section 846 of the Civil Code, which concerns permission to enter private land foI
recreational purposes, provides:
"846. An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe
far entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such
premises to persons entering for such purpose, except as provided in this section.
"An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether
possessory or nonpossessory, who gives permission to another for entry or use for the above purpose upon the premises does not thereby (a) extend
any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose, or (b) constitute the person to whom pennission has been granted the legal status of an
invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (c) assume
responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property
caused by an act of such person to whom permission has been granted
except as provided in this section.
'This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists (a) for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use,
structure, or activity; or (b) for injury suffered in any case where permission
to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than
the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state, or where
consideration has been received from others for the same purpose; or (c) to
any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come
upon the premises by the landowner.
"Nothing in this section creates a duty of care or ground of liability for
injury to person or property."
I_ 0 In interpreting Section 846, the courts have constm 9 a it to apply solely to
private landowners (Delta Farms Reclamation @& v. Superior Court, 33 CaL
3d 699, 707-708; Vernon Nelsen v. city of Gridley, 113 CaL App. 3d 87),
which is consistent with the state's purpose of "encouraging private landowners to pant recreational access" in order to allow the general public
to recreate free of charge on privately owned property (Parish v, Llovd, 82 Cal. App. 3d 785, 788).
Section 846 immunizes private landowners from liability for injuries to those permitted t<
enter the property for recreational purposes as nonpaying licensees, or invitees, and tc
trespassers entering the land for the same purposes. A landowner would owe a duty of can
to a licensee who pays consideration or to an express invitee (Delta Farms Reclamation Dist
v. Superior Court, supra, at 708).
Thus, Section 846 is an exception to the common law rule that an owner is responsible fo
injuries to another, regardless of the person's classification as a trespasser or licensee
caused by want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property (OShea v
Claude C. Wood Co., 97 CaL App. 3d 903, 913). That is to say, Section 846 exempts i
private property owner from liability to persons who are Bespassers or nonpaying licensee
failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity (Sec. 846:
In summy, Section 846 immunizes private landowners from liability for injuries caused b
a want of ordinary care or skill to trespassers and persons granted pennission to enter th
land for specified recreational purposes, subject to the exceptions previously mentionec
Permission to use the land does not extend any assurance that the property is safe, creat
a duty of care or skill owed to a licensee or invitee, or establish any liability c
responsibility of the landowner for injuries, unless there is some consideration paid by
licensee or the person is an express invitee.
or invitees. Nevertheless, a private landowner would be liable for any willful or maliciou
B. Public Landowners
The Tort Claims Act, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of Part 1 of th
Govemment Code addresses the liability of public landowners. Section 815 of that chaptc
provides:
"815. (a) A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury
arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or
any other person.
"(b) The liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing
with Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided
by statute, including this part, and is subject to any defenses that would be
available to the public entity if it were a private person."
2
" 0 e
Thus, Section 815 provides public entities with a limited immunitv for iniuries caused by
an act or omission of the public entity or an employee of that public entity, exceDt as
otherwise provided bv statute. Moreover, public entities mav claim any defenses available to a Drivate Derson.
Sections 831.2 and 831.4 distinguish between "unimproved" and "improved" public property
for purposes of imposing liability for injuries caused by a natural condition of the property.
The sections emresslv state that a public entitv is not liable for iniuries on unimproved
public DroDerhr caused bv a natural condition. However, an obvious concern is the
question: what is the definition of a "natural condition"? Sections 831.2 and 831.4 read
as follows:
"831.2 Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injuxy caused by a natural condition of any unimproved public property, including
but not limited to any natural condition of any lake, stream, bay, river, or
beach."
"831.4 A public entity, public employee, or a grantor of a public easement
to a public entity for any of the following purposes, is not liable for an
injury caused by a condition of:
"(a) Any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting, camping,
hiking, riding including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water
sports, recreational or scenic areas and which is not a (1) city street or
highway or (2) county, state, or federal highway or (3) public street or
highway of a joint highway district, boulevard, district, bridge, and highway
district or similar district formed for the improvement or building of public
streets or highways.
"@) Any trail used for the above purposes.
"(c) Any paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk on an easement of way
which has been granted to a public entity, which easement provides access
to any unimproved property, so long as such public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the existence of any condition of the paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk which constitutes a hazard to health or safety. Warnings required by this subdivision shall only be
required where pathways are paved, and such requirement shall not be
construed to be a standard of care for any unpaved pathways or roads."
In addition, Section 831.7 provides, in part, that:
"(a) Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity$ including any person
who assists the participant, or to any spectator who knew or reasonably should have known that the hazardous recreational activity created a
substantial risk of injury to himself or herself and was voluntarily in the
place of risk, or having the ability to do so failed to leave, for any damage
- 3
,- 0 or injury to property or persons arising out of that dous recreational
activity.
"(b) As used in this section, 'hazardous recreational actitivity' means a
recreational activity conducted on property of a public entity which creates
a substantial (as distinguished form a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of
injury to a participant or spectator.
"Hazardous recreational activiq also means:
"(1) Water contact activities, except diving, in places where or at a time when lifeguards are not provided and reasonable warning thereof has been
given or the injured party should reasonably have known that there was no
lifeguard provided at the time.
"(2) Any form of diving into water from other than a diving board or diving
platform, or at any place or from any structure where diving is prohibited
and reasonable warning thereof has been given.
"(3) Animal riding, including equestrian competition, archery, bicycle racing
or jumping, boating, cross-country and downhill skiing, hang gliding,
kayaking, motorized vehicle racing, off-road motorcycling or four-wheel
driving of any kind, orienteering, pistol and rifle shooting, rock climbing,
rocketeering, rodeo, spelunking, sky diving, sport parachuting, body contact
sports (Le., sports in which it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be
rough bodily contact dth one or more participants), surfing, trampalining,
tree climbing, tree rope swinging, water skiing, white water rafting, and
wind surfing."
In summary, while Section 831.2 provides absolute statutory immunity to public landowners fo:
injuries caused by natufal conditions of unimproved public property (see Millimn v. Citv of Lam:
Beach, 34 CaL 3d 829), Section 831.4 specifically provides immunity to public entities for injurier
caused by a condition of any trail which provides access to recreational or scenic areas and sud
activities as hiking and horseback riding. If the trail is paved, then the public entity mus
"reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of ...any condition..which constitutes a hazarc
to health or safety". Finally, neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable to any persol
who participates in a hazardous activity (defined under #3 above).
HOWEVER, the public landowner is liable for the failure "to guard or warn of a known dangerou
condition or of another hazardous recreational activity known to the public entity or employee tha
is not reasonabv assumed by the participant as inherently a part of the hazardous recreationa
activity out of which the damage or injury arose" (para. (I), subd. (c), Sec. 831.7). In addition
under these provisions, a public landowner's potential liability is not limited if it would otherwisl
exist for any of the following:
4
>- "831.7. W *** 0
"(2) Damage or injury suffered in any case where permission to participate
in the hazardous recreational activity was granted for a specific fee, FQK the
purpose of this paragraph, a 'specific fee' does not include a fee or
consideration charged for a general purpose such as a general park
admission charge, a vehicle enhy or parking fee, or an administrative or
group use application or pennit fee, as distinguished from a specific fee
charged for participation in the specific hazardous recreational activity out
of which the damage or injury arose.
"(3) Injury suffered to the extent proximately caused by the negligent failure
of the public entity or public employee to properly construct or maintain in
good repair any structure, recreational equipment or machinery, or
substantial work of improvement utilized in the hazardous recreational
activity out of which the damage or injury arose.
"(4) Damage or injury suffered in any case where the public entity or
employee recklessly or with gross negligence promoted the participation in
or observance of a hazardous recreational activity.
* **
Under these provisions, a public landowner may be liable for not properly maintaining h
good repair a paved trail (para. (3), subd. (c), Sec. 831.7; see subd. (e), Sec. 831.'
(adequate warnings of paved riding trail are required)).
Although none of the provisions under subdivision (c) of Section 831.7 creates a duty o
care or basis of liability for personal injury for damage to personal property, a publil
landowner would be liable for an act of gross negligence which is the proximate cause o
the injury (para. (b), subd. (c), Sec. 831.7).
Similarly, a public landowner may be held liable for injuries caused by a "dangerou
condition" on public property under Section 835. This section provides the following:
"835. Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury
caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes
that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that
the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the
dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either:
"(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public
entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition;
or
5
7- 0 e
"@) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous
condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injuy to have
taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition,"
"Actual notice," within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835, exists when a public
entity has actual knowledge or should have known about the dangerous condition (subd.
(a), Sec. 835.2), and "constructive notice" exists if the plaintiff shows that the condition was
so obvious and existed for such a period of time, that with due care, the public entity should
have discovered the dangerous condition (subd. (b), Sec. 835.2).
With respect to the liability of a public landowner for injuries caused by a negligent 01
wrongful act or omission of an employee, who, acting within the scope of his or he1
employment, created the dangerous condition, subdivision (a) of Section 835.4 provide!
that:
"(a) A public entity is not liable under subdivision (a) of Section 835 for injuq caused by a condition of its property if the public entity establishes that the act 01
omission that created the condition was reasonable ..."
In conclusion, the City is generally liable for injuries on its property which are the result of z
dangerous condition on its property when the City knows or should have known of the dangerou!
condition. This general rule applies to all City real property unless a statutory immunity can bc
found. Three statutory immunities reduce the City's liability.
1. The City is not liable for injuries caused by a natural condition of unimproved public
property. However, the definition of "natural condition" is up to debate.
2. The City is not liable for injury caused by the condition of:
a. Unpaved roads which provide access to recreational or scenic areas as lonl
as the road is not a "county highway";
b. Any trail used as access to a recreational or scenic area; and
c. Any paved trail which provides access to an unimproved property, so loni
as the County makes a reasonable attempt to provide adequate warning o the existence of any condition along the trail which constitutes a hazard tc
health or safety.
3. The City is not liable to any person participating in a hazardous recreational activiq
(horseback riding for purposes of this discussion), or any other person who know
of or should know of the substantial danger of these activities, as long as the City
a. Wm of a known other dangerous condition or hazardous recreationa activity which is not an inherent part of equestrian activities;
b. Does not charge a specific fee for allowing participation in equestria
activities; and
6
~- e * c. Properly constructs and maintains in good repa any structure, recreational
equipment or other substantial work of improvement utilized in the equesman acrivioes,
Further research needed includes the relationship between these immunities and the use of
aails/pathways for both recreation and transportation. Is immunity applicable to the right-of-way?
C. Land Trusts
Land trusts are private, nonprofit, tax-exempt corporations, and are funded largely through
membership dues and donations from individuals, businesses, and ,foundations.
Land trusts are generally not "~IUS~S" in the legal sense. In fact, many refer to themselves as
conservancies, foundations, or associations. Some are small and are run solely by volunteers. Others manage thousands of acres and have large, professional staffs.
Land trusts protect land permanently and directly. They accept donations of properties, buy land,
or help landowners establish legal restrictions that limit harmful use and development.
Land trusts work at the community, regional, or state level for the direct protection of specific lands
for their agricultural, historical, natural, recreational, or scenic importance.
Some preserve many different types of land. Others focus on a particular area or resource.
Examples of land trusts in California are attached as Exhibit 1. (not included with this cop
Although land trusts are diverse, independent, and often scattered geographically, they share a
common commitment to using voluntary initiatives in the protection of threatened open lands.
Land trusts are distinguished from other conservation organizations principally by their direct
hold and manage at least some of the open space lands they act to protect. Others focus entirely
on the -fer of lands to other public and private entities. Sometimes a land trust is organized
to protect a single piece of property, but the more active trusts trgr to affect land use patterns
throughout their community or region
Most local land trusts depend on volunteer leadership and support even if they also have a
professional staff.
As of 1991, the following statistics on land trusts were collected by the Land Trust Alliance, T
national organization of land trusts.
involvement in land transactions, through which their conservation goals are realbed, Most trusts
B There are land trusts operating in all fifty states, as well as in Puerto Rico and the Vir@ Islands. Approximately one-half of land trusts were formed between 1980 and 1990; onc third between 1985 and 1990.
Among states with land trusts, California ranks third in number of trusts with 76, behinc
Massachusetts and Connecticut with 116 and 114 respectively.
7
1 *- 0 0
Approximately one-half of land trusts have budgets of $10,000 or less. Twenty-two
percent have budgets greater than $100,000.
rn Fifty-seven percent of land trusts have no paid staff; 10 percent have part-time staff only;
27 percent have one or more full-time staff.
rn Average percentages of land acquisition funding from various sources are: individual
donations/memberships 70%, government funds lo%, foundations 8%, corporations 3%,
and other 9k
According to Liz Steenrod of the LTA, land trusts are typically grassroots organizations. How a land
mst is established is outlined in Exhiiit 2. (Not included with this COPY - 1
Due to the significant amount of work and level of commitment required to organize and run a land
trust, there may not be many individualdorganizations interested in the preservation of 4 the
different types of open space included in the Open Space Resource Management Plan (OSCRMP).
To complete any discussion of land trusts as this type of organization might relate to the OSCRMP,
three additional steps should be taken.
1. Research the relationship between some of the existing land trusts in California and
1ocaVregional government;
2. Research the pros and cons - legal, political or athehe - of open space for public
use under the authority of a land trust management; and
3. Research the distinction between land trusts and "trusts" in the legal sense.
Part of this report, including references to Code sections, contains excerpts from a report to the
Legislative Counsel of California from Anthony Marquez, Deputy Legislative Counsel, 1988, and a
report to the County Parks Department from Jay Vickers, Deputy.County Counsel, 1985. Any
updates to these sections of the Code have not been reviewed.
8
*. 1' e
September 13,1993 0 EXHIBIT IV
.9 TO! ASSOCIATE PLANNER TEN WOODS
FROM: Risk Manager
LIABILITY: IMPROVEWWIS AND NATURAL CONDITIONS OF TRAIL
In response to your request for my opinion on a trail of nand conditions, with occasional areas
of improvements such as asphalt and concrete, my comments are shown below.
TRAIL WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS: Generally, a public entity is liable for injuries resulting from
substantial, known dangerous conditions of its property. However, Section 831.2 of the Tort Claims
Act, Chapter 1 of Title 1 of Part 1 of the Government Code provides an absolute immunity for public entities against claims for injuries caused by natural conditions of unimproved public
property (McCaulev v. Citv of San Diem (1987) 190 CaL App. 3d 981,986,235 Cal. Rptr. 732).
This statute was enacted to relieve public entities of the burden and expense of putting the State's
natural lands in a safe condition and defending against personal injury lawsuits. It was designed
to ensure that public agencies will not, because of financial expense, grrohiiit public access to and use of the State's natural recreational resources. (Millinan v, City of Lanuna Beach (1983) 34 CaL
3d 829, 833, 835, 196 CaL Rptr. 38, 670 P.2d 1121; McCaulev v. Citv of San Dieno, see above).
Due to the absolute immunity provided by Section 831.2, a txail without improvements provides the
City with the least amount of liability exposure.
TRAIL WITH IMPROVEMENTWAVED TRAIL: Once improvements such as paving are added to a trail, the City's immunity becomes conditional. Sections 831.4 and 831.7 provide the following:
The City is not liable for injury caused by the condition of a paved trail, on an easement of way granted to the City, which provides access to an unimproved property, so long as the City makes a reasonable attempt to provide adequate
warning of the existence of any condition along the trail which constitutes a hazard
to health or safety; and
m The City is not liable to any person participating in a hazardous recreational activity
(see definition in Attachment), or any other person who knows of or should know
of the substantial dangers of these activities, as long as the City (including employees) :
a. Warns of a known dangerous condition or hazardous recreational activity that is not reasonably assumed by the participant as inherently a part of the
hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose.
b. Does not charge a specific fee for allowing participation in a hazardous recreational activity.
c. Properly constiucts and maintains in good repair any structure, recreational
equipment or other substantial work of improvement utilized in the
hazardous recreational activity.
., d. et recklessly or with gross negligen romote participation in or observance of a hazardous activity or co a an act of gross negligence
which causes an injury.
Due to these conditions of immunity, the City's liability exposure is clearly greater with the addition of improvements to the trail
Another important statute to keep in mind when considering improvements on the trail is Section
835 which provides that a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its
property if the plaintiff establishes (1) a dangerous condition existed at the time of the injury; (2)
the injury was caused by the dangerous condition; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably
foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred; & either (a) the dangerous condition
was created by a negligent act or omission of a public employee acting in the scope of employment
corrective measures prior to the injury. This statute requires that improvements on a trail, like all
improvements, are designed, constructed and maintained so as not to create a dangerous condition
In conclusion, paved improvements to the trail will increase the liability exposure for the City. As a result, these improvements should be avoided if possible. However, if such improvements are
necessary, it will be important to design and construct them consistent with proposed uses of the
trail, and plan for adequate warning of any condition along the mil which constitutes a hazard tc
health or safety. Some suggestions to achieve these things include: (1) review trail plans and/01
conduct site visits of trail systems in other cites and compare designs and claims records; and (2)
obtain the services of a safety engineer. PARSAC, the liability insurance pool of the which Carlsbad
is a member, uses the services of safety engineers Chuck Pollotti and Ron Fnk. These engineers
make a site visit to the member cities each year to inspect City facilities. Perhaps we could ask
them to give us some advice on design and placement of improvements on the trail.
Please call me if I can provide any additional help (X2807 or X2907).
- or (b) the public entity had notice of the dangerous condition and had sufficient time to take
2ZKS4\.
ERIN K. LETSCH Risk Manager
c: City Attorney
Financia Management Director
Principal Enginee!r Bob Wojcik
" *I 0 8
HAZARDOUS RECREA~ONALA~
Under Section 831.7 (b) 'hazardous recreational activiw means a recreational activity conducted
on property of a public entity which creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial,
or insignificant) risk of injury to a participant or spectator.
"Hazardous recreational activiq also means:
"( 1) Water contact activities, except diving, in places where or at a time when lifeguards are
not provided and reasonable warning thereof has been given or the injured party should
reasonable have known that there was no lifeguard provided at the time.
"(2) Any form of diving into water from other than a diving board or diving platform, or
at any place or from any structure where diving is prohiiited and reasonable waming
thereof has been given.
"(3) Animal riding, including equestrian competition, archery, bicycle racing or jumping,
boating, cross-country and downhill skiing, hang gliding, kayaking, motorized vehicle
racing, off-road motorcycling or four-wheel driving of any kind, orienteering, pistol and xifle
shooting, rock climbing, rocketeexing, rodeo, spelunking sky diving, sport parachuting, body
contact sports (Le., sports in which it is reasonable that there will be rough bodily contad
with one or more participants), surfing, trampolining, tree climbing, tree rope swinging,
water skiing, white water rafting, and wind surfing."
-. h M . CITI-F CARLSBAD - AGEN~BILL
YILIILY I L J
i I '" a, 5
CITY , MTG. 9/1/_92- a WNAQEMENT PUN = BI 92-1 U
DEPT. TITLE: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION RESOURCE AB # ,I, ,py/
J
@n .I4 E: 1 DEPT. PLN I I CITY I u I I
.rl Z RECOMMENDED ACTION;
cu
coordinate the recommendations of the Open Space and Conservatio u
and Conservation .Resource Management Plan: (b) direct staff t' 3
That the City Council by Minute Motion (a) ACCEPT the Open Spacl
g Resource Management Plan with the recommendations of the Habita
u Management Plan: and c) direct staff to revise the General Pla g Open Space and Conservation Element incorporating th
% recommendations of the Open Space and Conservation Resourc
& Management Plan.
rd
b o ITEM EXPLANATION
w
$
. principal one of which was to prepare an Open Space an 2 City Council. The report included a number of recommendations, (I1
Carlsbad's Open Space Plan and Programs completed its report to th 2 In July 1989, the 15-member Citizens' Committee for Review o
a, Council appointed a 9-member Open Space Advisory Committee t 3
Conservation Resource Management Plan. On June 19, 1990, the Cit
and Conservation Resource Management Plan (OSCRMP) is th u z Ti % address unfinished open space tasks that had been identified by th
earlier 15-member Open Space Citizens' Committee. The Open Spac
(0 culmination of the efforts of the committee, consultants and staff
-I -I4 The OSCRMP will primarily be the implementation program -for th
(d Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. Th
M
citywide action and implementation plan; establishes action an a recommends open space g'oals, objectives, and policies; contains J-I
inventory: establishes an open space classification system Q)
OSCRMP establishes open space definitions; includes an open spac
k !-I implementation strategies for each of the City's twenty-five Loca
a, implementing the OSCRMP; and proposes a Carlsbad Trail System. Th detailed Planning Commission Staff Report (attached as Exhibit Oltt
c explains these programs further and sets out the primary issues o the plan.
Ln h
Ll
s
3J
w
$4
a
(d
a, Facilities Management Zones; contains cost estimates o
ct
0
Q II=
9
2
z 0
I" 0
-
a 8 z 3 0 0
The Planning Commission considered the OSCRMP on May 20, 1992. Th
Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the OSCRMP including certain minor modifications suggested by staff. Thes changes were adopted by the Open Space Advisory Committee on Ma
28, 1992, and are included in the version of the plan presented t
the City Council.
One additional item needs to be noted. The ,City has begun th preparation of a multi-species Habitat Management Plan (HMP). T the extent possible, staff has coordinated the recommendations o the OSCRMP with the preliminary planning of the HMP. Fina recommendations of the HMP are still being developed, and, up0 acceptance by the City Council, may require that furthe modifications be made to the OSCRMP. Staff will continue t coordinate both planning efforts. Recommendations of both studie will be integrated into an updated Open Space and Conservatio Element,
0 e
Page 2 OB AGENDA BILL NO- 11: S 71
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan is a stud and does not constitute a project requiring environmental revie under the California Environmental Quality Act. The later adoptic into the General Plan of the recommendations of this stud1 including the proposed trail and open space system, would I: subject to environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The acceptance and endorsement of the Open Space and Conservatic
Resource Management Plan is the first of many steps that wil
eventually lead to commitment of significant amounts of money t
acquire, preserve and protect open space in the City of Carlsbac The document before the Council does not itself ask .for tl: expenditure of funds. However, the recommendations contained j
the report suggest that the City should begin work on an open spac
protection program that will eventually call for the issuance c
General Obligation bonds, the passage of a Proposition H measul
allowing the expenditure of millions of dollars of General Fur money and require the assignment of staff to maintain the opt space and trail system.
If the Council accepts the OSCRMP the City would expect t experience the following costs in the future:
4 Acquisition of Land and Easements $8.8 mil
4 Improvement Costs 3.4 + Annual Staffing and Operating Costs 0.6
The report recommends the use of General obligation bonds 1
finance the purchase and improvement of the facilities. It is ala
possible that a Proposition H vote will be necessary if si.gnifica1 amounts of General Fund money are to be committed to this projecl
A General Obligation bond issue would require the approval of 2,
of the voters casting ballots in the election. The Proposition question requires the approval of a simple majority of the vote] casting ballots.
The operating costs related to this project could be covered by 2
increase in the assessment to residents under the existing lightil
and landscaping district. Although an increase in assessments wi
discussed at a public forum on July 8, 1992, the Council would 1
required to hold a formal public hearing to expand the scope of tl
existing lighting and landscape district. The General Fund wi: not be able to support the operating costs of this program for tl
foreseeable future without reductions in services in other areas
.If Counci1,wants to hold a special election rather than calling fc a vote on these issues as part of a regularly scheduled electiol the cost for the special election would be about $110,000. The: cost estimates do not include the costs associated with tl
implementation of the HMP.
0 0
Page 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. I/! fW
EXHIBITS
1. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated May 20, 199:
2. Memorandum to the Planning Commission, from the Plannil
3. Open Space and Conservation Resource Management P1;
Department, dated May 6, 1992.
(previously distributed) .
2.7
a 8 EXHIBIT 1 6zG
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 20, 1992
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: DI-92-1 - OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION RESOURCE MANAGEMEN
PLAN
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT a minute motion recommending the City Counci:
a) accept the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan; b) direct staff t
coordinate the recommendations of the Open Space and Conservation Resourc
Management Plan with the recommendations of the Habitat Management Plan, current1
under preparation; and c) direct staff to revise the General Plan Open Space an
Conservation Element incorporating the recommendations of the Open Space an
Conservation Resource Management Plan.
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
In July 1989, the 15-member Citizens Committee for the Review of Carlsbad’s Open Spac
Plan and Program completed its report to City Council. The report included a number c
recommendations, a principal one of which was to prepare an Open Space an
Conservation Resource Management Plan.
On June 19, 1990, the City Council appointed a 9-member Open Space Advisor
Committee to address unfinished open space tasks that had been identified by the earlie
15-member Open Space Citizen’s Committee. The Open Space and Conservation Resourc
Management Plan (OSCRMP) is the culmination of the efforts of the committef
consultants and staff.
The OSCRMP will primarily be the implementation program for the Open Space an
Conservation Element. The plan: includes an open space inventory; establishes an ope
space classification system; recommends open space goals, objectives and policies; contair
a citywide action and implementation plan; establishes action and implementatio
strategies for each of the City‘s twenty-five (25) Local Facilities Management Zone:
contains cost estimates of implementing the OSCRMP; includes the Carlsbad Trail Systen
and, includes open space definitions.
@
-2
0 e OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION RESOURCE MANAGEMEILL PLAN
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 2
Attached to this staff report is a draft of the Open Space and Conservation Resource
Management Plan.
111. ANALYSIS
Planninn Issues
1. What open space issues, identified by the original 15-member citizens committee tc
study open space, have been resolved in the Open Space and Conservation Resourcc
Management Plan?
2. What are the Plan's key recommendations regarding open space?
3. What are the major policy implications recommended in this plan?
4. Are there additional open space issues that should be addressed?
DISCUSSION
1. mace issues addressed in the or>en Space and Conservation Resourcc
Management Plan
The following open space issues, identified by the original 15-member citizens committec
to study open space, have been addressed in the Open Space and Conservation Resourcc
Management Plan:
A. Developed definitions of the various forms of open space;
B. Developed a definition for "significant effect on the environment";
C. Utilized the Growth Management definition of undevelopable lands;
D. Developed goals and policies establishing: that lands set aside as open spao
be mapped and zoned open space; that developments provide the segment
of the Carlsbad Trail System; the formal boundary adjustment procedures fo
open space; and, that lands set aside for its habitat or scenic value have a1
appropriate easement placed on it for resource protection;
E. Determined when major powerlines would receive credit toward the 15
percent growth management performance standard;
F. Determined the credit to be applied to golf courses;
I:>
*PEN SPACE 'AND c#-VATION RESOURCE MANAGE&- pm
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 3
G. Determined the credit to be applied to open space lands that are no1
available to the public without monetary or other consideration;
H. Completed an inventory of open space;
1.
J.
K,
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Determined that open space demand estimates or standards were no'
appropriate but that establishing priorities for all the open space land anc
developing implementation procedures to acquire open space were thf
manners to address the issue;
Established methods to preserve open space. The Habitat Management Plar
(HMP) will further define preservation efforts;
Recommended areas of existing open space that should be considered for
enhancement and preservation;
Recommended refined design standards for improvements to open space
areas including the trail system;
Identified scenic gateways to public open space;
Identified and recommended for acquisition, all ' established open spacc
priorities;
Recommended priorities for open space acquisition;
Recornended financing mechanisms for acquiring and financing open space
and access to open space;
Reviewed programs to facilitate private donations as a funding mechanism;
Recommended a detailed implementation program;
Recommended that the City coordinate open space and trail efforts with
those of affected agencies; and,
Recommended a comprehensive program for the Carlsbad Trail System.
8
?.-
e e OPEN SPACE AND COh~tiRVATION RESOURCE MANAGEML. A PLAN
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 4
2. Key om sDace, imdementation, and financing recommendations
A, Kev ODen SDace Recommendations
(1) The City should implement an integrated open space system whicl
incorporates as many types as possible of open space identified in thc
open space classification system.
(2) The City should implement a connected open space system in whicl
linear open space greenways serve to join together parks an(
recreational open spaces, lagoons, lakes and other water features
habitat preserve areas, schools, and other open space resources.
(3) The City should implement a publicly-accessible open space system s(
that City residents and visitors can get out into their landscape an(
enjoy the recreational amenities it offers.
(4) The City should implement a Citywide traiz system throughout it
open space areas to provide for recreation and non-vehicula
circulation.
(5) The City should implement a scenic open space system, in order fo
Carlsbad to retain its distinctive landscape identity and character.
(6) The City should implement an open space system for wildlife througl
coordination of the provisions of this plan with the Habita
Management Plan, which is currently under preparation.
B. Primary Implementation Recommendations
The primary implementation recommendations are as follows:
(1) Trails:
a. Implement a Citywide trail system acquiring new traj
easements and using existing right-of-way. The City should bi
responsible for the maintenance and liability associated wit1
the Carlsbad Trail System.
b, Most trails should be dedicated through the subdivisio~
approval process. Some trail easements will have to b'
purchased. Trail easements which must be purchased shoulc
be located only within land which is zoned for open space o
utilities.
\7 i 9
e a
OPEN SPACE AND CONSkNATION RESOURCE MANAGEME1 . - PLAN
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 5
C.
(2) Open Space:
a. Most open space will be acquired through project review,
protection ordinances, and the Growth Management 15-percent
Open Space Performance Standard.
b. Some open space will have to be purchased. The City shoulc
purchase this land in-fee title.
c. The City should require that open space which is to be ser
aside under the growth management 15-percent requirement
be dedicated to the City either in-fee title or with 2
conservation easement. The dedicated land should have ar
accompanying maintenance assessment district established 01
a developer contribution to a maintenance endowment a!
described in the OSCRMP. The City should be responsible fol
the maintenance and liability of dedicated open space lands.
d. The City should reserve the right to refuse offers of land tha? are not identified in the OSCRMP.
Financing Recommendations
(1) The City should propose a general obligation bond for open spacf
purchase, trail easement purchase, and City-incurred improvemen
costs. The estimated tax impact is $9.95 to $11.36 per $100,000 o
assessed value, depending on whether a single series or separate sene!
of bonds are issued. If a series of bonds are issued, the series shoulc
be issued over a six-year period in three separate issues. Each bonc
will be outstanding for 20 years.
(2) The City should propose an accompanying ballot measure to ped
the City to spend more than $1 million, in accordance wit€
Proposition H.
(3) The City should amend the existing Citywide lighting and landscapt
maintenance assessment district to fund maintenance of the trai
system and City-purchased open space. Alternatively, a new distric
could be formed for this purpose. The annual estimated assessmen
impact per household would range from $6.20 during the first phasf
to $16.40 per household after full system build-out, diminishing a:
population is added. If non-residential uses are also assessed, thc
impact per household will be less.
3A
- ' OPEN SPACE AND CO'W'VATION RESOURCE MANAGEPW PLAN
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 6
(4) Where private property owners or associations wish to dedicate to th(
City open space they now maintain, the City should require the ope]
space to be within the recommended Citywide open space systerr
Further, a maintenance assessment district should be formed for thes
lands or they should be annexed into the Citywide maintenanc
district.
(5) The City should encourage existing Homeowner Associations, whic
own open space within the Citywide system, to contract with the Cit
for maintenance for that open space, taking advantage of economie
of scale, and encouraging uniform maintenance standards.
(6) The City should consider forming a public land trust or conservanc
in Carlsbad.
3. Major policy implications of the Own Space and Conservation Resourc
Management Plan
A. Establishment of oDen space Driorities Citywide
This plan establishes priorities for open space from a Citywide perspectivc
defining the general intent for future open space planning for each type (
open space. This study indicates the relative Citywide priority for each typ
of open space, as well as the priorities for action on a zone-by-zone bas:
(see Table 5 attached). The Citywide priorities were set by considering th
importance of each open space type and also considering the degree c
protection afforded to that open space type by existing regulations. Thus, fc
example, while both wetlands and trails could be considered equall
important components of the open space system, wetlands are given th
lowest Citywide priority because they are already effectively protected undc
environmental regulations. Trails on the other hand, are given the highe!
Citywide priority because there is no other program or set of regulatior
which assure implementation of the proposed Citywide trail system. The to Citywide open space priorities include plant/animal life/ habitat, watt
features, public parks and recreation, greenways, trails, an
scenic/cultural/educational resources.
B. Establishment of open space priorities on a Local Facilities Zone basis
Once the priorities for open space were established at a Citywide level, it w:
possible to implement those priorities on a zone-by-zone basis. This stud
includes recommendations for primary and secondary open space prioritit
for each of the City's twenty-five (25) Local Facilities Management Zone
The detail discussion of each zone includes a description of existin
2.3
w 8 OPEN SPACE AND CON~LAVATION RESOURCE MANAGEMEL- I PLAN
MAY 20,1992 PAGE 7
conditions, development status, constrained open space, open space priorities
and implementation approach.
C. Delineation of what counts toward the 15-percent Growth Manaaement Open
SDace Performance Standard
This study recommends what types of open space should receive credil
toward meeting the Growth Management Open Space Performance Standard,
The City's Growth Management program established that fifteen (1 5) percenr
of the total land area in a zone, exclusive of environmentally constrained
non-developable land must be set aside for permanent open space and musl
be available concurrent with development. Presently, it is up to the propem
owners within a zone to determine amongst themselves how the open spact
will be allocated. It is the intent of the OSCRMP to establish where futurc
open space will be allocated.
It is recommended in this plan that for a proposed open space area, in 2
Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) zone, to receive credit towarc
meeting the 15-percent open space standard, the open space area for the
LFMP zone shall be consistent with the primary and secondary open space
action priorities identified in the OSCRMP. If the primary and secondaq
open space priorities have been satisfied in the zone, any open space are:
approved by the Planning Department may receive full credit toward meeting
the open space standard.
. The City will continue the existing policy requiring property owners to shov
zone plans. The financing program of a zone plan will be required tc
address how open space will be financed when there are fiagmentec
ownerships within a zone. Therefore, the City places the responsibility fol
resolving the issue of how the priorities are met, within a zone, on the
property owners. This gives the property owners the greatest flexibility ir
determining how they will allocate development rights and compensate
owners of small parcels within the zone for set-asides for open space
purposes.
how they dl1 meet the 15-percent open space requirement in the individua:
D. Carlsbad Trail Svstem
It is recommended in the plan to establish the Carlsbad Trail System. A trail!
Feasibility Study, completed in 1990, gave the City Council and others thf
information necessary on which to base policy and administrative decision:
regarding trails in the City of Carlsbad. As a result, the Carlsbad Trai
System was incorporated as a major component of the OSCRMP.
&w
OPEN SPACE AND COlvadVATtON RESOURCE MANAGE IyIEI.l PLAN
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 8
There are three types of trails included in the proposed system: a full:
improved paved trail which would be used in the most urban and heavil
used sections of the trails system - this type would be fully handicappel
accessible; .an unpaved trail type which is intended to be only minimall
improved in order to allow a more rural trail experience; and a few tra.
linkages which would use the sidewalk and bike lanes in the road right-oj way - this type is to be used only where aligning the trail in a separate righl
of-way is not possible.
The trail system as a whole includes a total of 74 miles of pedestrian, bicyclc
and joint use trails. The Carlsbad Trail System has been broken down fc
convenience of discussion into segments of various length determined b
factors such as changes in ownership and interconnections of one tra
orientation to another. The trail program includes design guidelines, stagin
areas, view points and picnic areas, guidelines for interpretive signagc
administrative responsibility, maintenance responsibility, and a financin
program for acquisition, improvement, liability, and administration an
operation of the Carlsbad Trail System.
E. Administrative Responsibility
There are two main areas of administration requrred to implement tk
recommendations of the OSCRMP.
(1) Long-Range Planning and Project Design Review
As with any long-term planning effort, this open space study carrit
implications for a range of other planning documents, including tk
General Plan. It will be necessary to ensure consistency between tk
OSCRMP and other planning efforts in the City. In particular, it wj
be necessary to update the Open Space and Conservation Elements (
the City‘s General Plan. Responsibility for these tasks will remain j
the Planning Department.
The Planning Department will also remain responsible for individu
project design review to ensure that the provisions of the OSCRN are implemented in the future, more detailed project implementatio:
(2) Maintenance and Operations Responsibility
It is recommended that the responsibility for maintenance ar
operations of the Citywide open space system and Carlsbad Tri
System be given to the Parks and Recreation Department. Th
department is already responsible for programming and maintainir
%? .5- ’ ”
0 0 OPEN SPACE AND CONSLAVATION RESOURCE MANAGEMEL\ l PLAN
MAY 20. 1992
PAGE 9
the various City-owned public recreation areas. There will inevitablq
be an incremental cost implication to the department as the oper
space and trail system are developed. Provision is made for projected
incremental costs in the financial recommendations of the OSCRMP,
including both staffing and equipment costs.
F. LiabiZiR
It is recommended that the City take over the liability for portions of tht
open space system and the Carlsbad Trail System. In general, it i:
recommended that the portions of the open space system that are publicly
accessible should be the responsibility of the City. This study assumes tha
approximately 100-feet of open space land including the approximately 20
foot wide trail easement, will be maintained, operated and the liabiliq
responsibility of the City.
Liability responsibility for San Marcos Canyon is an issue. As proposed, 2
trail will run around the rim of San Marcos Canyon. These trail segment:
could provide the best scenic trail experience in the City, for Carlsbac
citizens. It is recommended that the City take over ownership, rnaintenancc
and liability of San Marcos Canyon or transfer ownership, maintenance an(
liability to a conservancy trust, possibly associated with the Habita
Management Plan, currently being prepared.
The San Marcos Canyon is currently owned and is the liability responsibilic
of the Fieldstone Company. The Fieldstone Company has stated that the!
would nat implement a trail system or any other program which coulc
increase access to the Canyon. They feel that the increased activity arounc
the rim would increase their liability exposure. They believe that thi!
liability burden should not be the responsibility of an individual propeq
owner, but should be the burden of the City or other agency.
In general, the OSCRMP assumes the City will maintain and take over thc fiabiliry res2onsibility for an open space system with an area o
approximately 100-feet in width, this area is to include a trail easement o
approximately 20-feet. The San Marcos Canyon vanes in width fron
approximately 300 to 900 feet. If the Canyon was treated exactly as thc
other open space/trail components of the plan, the City would be responsibh
for approximately 200-feet of the Canyon (100 feet around the entire rim o
the Canyon would be 200 feet of the total land area of the Canyon).
In light of the Fieldstone Conpany’s position regarding the liability exposurc
associated with increased access to the rim of San Marcos Canyon, it is vey
unlikely that the City would be able to implement a trail system around thc
.&
a a
OPEN SPACE AND CONScRVATION RESOURCE MANAGEMEk I' PLAN
MAY 20. 1992
PAGE 10
rim of the Canyon, unless the City or other agency takes over the
maintenance and liability for the Canyon. The City could have ownership of
the Canyon transferred to a conservancy trust which would not only take
over the liability responsibility for the Canyon, but would maintain the
Canyon in a manner which could enhance the habitat value. Having a
with the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), currently being prepared. Should
the City decide not to take over the maintenance and liability of the Canyon,
or transfer ownership to another agency, such as a conservancy trust, in al:
likelihood, the proposed trail segment around the rim of the Canyon will nor
be implemented.
conservancy trust hold ownership of this property may also be consistenf
G. Recommended specific - financing " programs - for acquisition, - improvement
maintenance, liability, administration and operation of open space and trail:
(1) General Obligation Bond
It is recommended that a General Obligation Bond be utilized tc
finance open space and trail acquisition and improvement (estimatec
cost $12.2 million). A general obligation bond is the least expensivt
form of financing since it is secured by the City's taxing power and i!
considered one of the most secure forms of financing. A genera
obligation (G.O.) bond requires two-thirds voter approval.
Since a G.O. bond would be applied to all properties, includinj
commercial and industrial, the cost burden per property is relativel!
low. As Citywide assessed value increases over time due to growth ir
the City, revenue can increase without increasing the cost for propert-] owners already paying additional taxes to support G,O, bonds, Also
bonds can be issued in phases to coincide with funding needs, whid
in turn are related to future population growth. This flexibility allow:
the City to keep the tax burden low.
(2) Assessment District
It is recommended that the City utilize the existing lighting an(
landscape maintenance district or form a new maintenance assessmen
district, for maintenance of open space and trails (estimated annua
cost $560,000). The City currently has several lighting and landscapc
maintenance districts, including a citywide district, establishec
way. A new citywide maintenance assessment district, fo
maintenance of open space and trails could be formed, or the existin:
citywide maintenance assessment district could be amended to includ(
.. primarily to finance maintenance of greenbelts, medians, and right-of
-7- 4.t ..... .j i
0 0 OPEN SPACE AND CONSLAVATION RESOURCE MANAGEMEL, I' PLAN
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 11
open space and trails, in either case, a strict association of cost anc
benefit would be required.
The premise here is that the trail system and portions of the oper
space system purchased by the City is a citywide facility of citywide
subdivision approval process would become part of the system, bu
since this open space is dedicated in exchange for City subdivisiol
approvals which accommodate growth, its maintenance would havc
contribution to a maintenance endowment or a project-specific
assessment district placed on the subdivided parcels by the developer
Existing homeowner associations that wish to dedicate open space
which they now maintain, to the City (within a designated open spacc
corridor) would have to agree to pay an additional assessment to fun(
future maintenance of this land. Because of economies of scale, thei
homeowner association. fees collecte'd to maintain the open spacc
would be reduced accordingly.
benefit, Open space acquired through dedication as part of tht
to be funded by the project itself, either through a developef
(3) Proposition H
If this program is approved, pursuant to Proposition H, voter approva
will be required. If the City decides to spend more than $1 millio~
out of general funds, Proposition H requires that voters approve thc
expenditures. A simple majority vote is required to approve thc
less than $1 million. Usually Proposition H approval is proposed tc
the voters at the same time as the funding proposal.
project, and the cost cannot be phased to reduce the expenditure tc
(4) Phasing
Phasing will occur as the City develops and dedication opportunitie
arise. Some elements of the open space and trail system can bc
implemented earlier if the City has the funds available from grants
G.O. bonds, or the general fund. T:he following is the anticipate(
phasing schedule for trails and open space:
Phase I (0-3 years) 45% of system
Phase I1 (4-6 years) 34%0 of system
Phase 111 (7+ years) 21Yo of system
Since the system will be phased, acquisition and improvement costs
financing requirements, and maintenance costs will also be phased.
,.p?d
- * OPEN SPACE AND cc CPVATION RESOURCE MANAGE^.^ PLAN
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 12
The total costs estimated for this project will not be incurred
immediately, but will be phased over time.
(5) Cost Estimate Summary
I,
I" COST'
Land & Easement Purchases & Cost $8.8 million II 1
Improvement Costs
$560,000 Annual Staff, Program, Maintenance & Operation Costs2
$3.4 million
1
2 Costs include a 15-percent contingency (all figures are 1992 dollars).
Cost at build-out, including allocation for liability, capital reserves, overhead, and costs incurred by all Cit
Departments except Police and Fire.
H. New maDs of the ODen &ace and Conservation Resource Mananement Pla~
The mapping for the Open Space and Conservation Resource Managemen
Plan was prepared in four (4) layers. The four (4) mapped layers of thi
plan include: i) The constrained open space layer, which contains thl
environmentally constrained lands pursuant to growth management; ii) thl
edsting and approved open space layer, which shows open space land
designated through master plans, specific plans, planned developments, anc
other project approvals; iii) the Carlsbad Trail System layer, which shows thl
proposed trail linkages in the City; and iv) the conceptual open space land
- layer, which shows the conceptual open space areas that could be achievec
through implementation of the primary and secondary open space prioritie
described in this plan (see Figure 2 through 5 attached). A composite o
selected mapped layers have been used to create the two primary maps fo
the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan: the "Oficiz
Open Space and Conservation Map" and, the "Conceptual Open Space an1
Conservation Map".
(1) Official Open Space and Conservation Map
The Official Open Space and Conseraration Map consists of
space mapped layers of the Open Space and Conservation Resourc
Management Plan (see Figure 6). The Official Open Space an
Conservation Map is intended to be the City's official map of approve'
and constrained open space lands in the City. This map depict
designated open space areas obtained through master plans, specifi
plans, planned developments, or other development approvals; anc
composite of the constrained open space and existing/approved ope:
.ag
OPEN SPACE'AND CC, "PVATION RESOURCE MANAGE "T- PLAN
MAY 20, 1992 a e
PAGE 13
additional areas of environmentally-sensitive lands which ar
prohibited from development by the open space ordinance, hillsid
development regulations, and other development regulations, It j
intended that the Offiaal Open Space and Conservation Map woul
also. become part of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
To modify the boundaries of this map a formal amendment to bot
the Open Space and Conservation and Land Use Elements may b
required. If a General Plan amendment is required, the boundar
adjustment procedures of the current Open Space and Conservatio
Element must be adhered to. The following are the findings whic
must be made in order to adjust the boundaries of any open spac
area shown on the map titled Official Open Space and Conservatia
Map dated April 1992.
a. The proposed open space area is equal to or greater than tk
area depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservatio
Map; and
b. The proposed open space area is of environmental qualir
equal to or greater than that depicted on the Official Ope
Space and Conservation Map; and
c. The proposed adjustment to open space as depicted on tk
Official Open Space and Conservation Map, is contiguous (
within close proximity to open space as shown on the Offici;
Open Space and conservation Map.
The City Council may also modify the boundary shown on th
Official Open Space and Conservation Map but only if it finc
that the modification is necessary to mitigate a sensitk
environmental area which is impacted by developmen
provided the boundary modification preserves open space at
within close proximity to the original area of open spac
Additionally, City Council may exempt public right-of-way fro]
the boundary adjustment procedures. However, environment,
analysis shall be performed for all proposed public rights-o
way improvements, and if determined that there are significal
adverse impacts to the value of the open space system, tho:
impacts shall be mitigated.
2 to 1 ratio (proposed acreage to existing acreage) and
443
e 0 OPEN SPACE AND CONSLAVATION RESOURCE MANAGEMEL. I PLAN
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 14
(2) Conceptual Open Space and Conservation Map
The Conceptual Open Space and Consewation Map consists of :
composite of the open space constrained lands, existing/approvec
open space, conceptual open space lands, and Carlsbad Trail Systen
layers of the Open Space and Conservation Resource Managemen
Plan mapping (see Figure 7 attached). The Conceptual Open Spac
and Conservation Map differs from the Official Open Space an( Conservation Map in that it shows the conceptual open space area
that could be achieved through implementation of the primary an1
secondary open space priorities described in the Open Space ant
Conservation Resource Management Plan. Having mapped existin
the City, it was possible to identify where additional open space wa
needed in order to complete the open space and conservation goal
and objectives as detailed in the plan. These additional open spac
lands are the areas on which the City needs to focus its attention i
terms of acquisition, whether through application of the 15-percer
growth management performance standard, direct purchase, c
through other means.
The amount of constrained open space which extends beyond th
mapping of existing/approved open space areas has been measure
and is shown on Table 3 attached. By adding the amount c
constrained open space to the existing/approved open space, it hz
been possible to determine a projected total of open space (befor
application of the 15-percent open space performance standard an
other methods of acquisition are applied). The total acres thereb
percent of the City's total area.
The conceptual components of this map, including the trail syster
and greenways, are intended to be flexible. It is anticipated that th
specific alignments of all conceptual open space components will k
determined through specific site plan and environmental reviev
Adjustments to the conceprzal open space components, including th
trail system and greenways, will not require a General Pla
amendment. However, the point at which a greenway or trail passe
from one zone to an adjacent zone, or from one property ownershi
to an adjacent ownership, should remain consistent with this ma]
unless an agreement has been reached with the adjacent zone (
owner to shift the transition point. A General Plan amendment wj
not be required to specifically site the conceptual components of th
and approved open space, as well as constrained open space lands i:
projected for build-out is approximately 6,720 acres, or roughly 2
plan. It is anticipated that on an annual basis the City will initiate
A :' . , '
OPEN SPACE AND CC@,WATION RESOURCE MANAGE.@T PLAN
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 15
General Plan amendment to add all dedicated open space areas to th
Open Space and Conservation and Land Use Maps. A General Pla
amendment will be required if any component of the conceptual pla
is deleted.
4, Addirional Open Space Issues Needinn Resolve
The unresolved issues requiring additional work include:
A. Coordination of the Habitat Management - Plan with the Open - Space an
Conservation Resource Mananement Plan and Open Space and Conservatio
Element.
The City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP), currently being prepared, ma
require revisions to the Open Space and Conservation Element and ma
require revisions to the Open Space and Conservation Resource Manageme1
Plan. Coordination of these open space planning efforts is in progress an
should be continued.
B. Study whether the Carlsbad Trail System should be available for neneral u:
by eauestrians.
The issue of equestrian use came up as an issue very late in the trail plannir;
process. Though prior consideration had been given to including equestriar
as a user of the trail system, it was decided by the Open Space Advisol
Committee, primarily due to lack of interest on the part of residents, 1
exclude equestrians as a general user of the trail system. Recently, sever;
Carlsbad residents have requested that at least a portion of the trail syste~
be made available for their equestrian use. As the trail study was almo
complete when the issue arose, and additional consultant work would requil
change orders to the original consultant contract, the committf
recommended that the issues be addressed at a later date.
C. Intenate the Open Space and Conservation Resource ManaEement Plan in1
the Open SDace and Conservation Element.
As the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Planis intendc
to serve as the implementation program for the Open Space ar
Conservation Element, it is important that the plan be integrated into tl
element. Additionally, further updating of the Goals, Objectives, and Polic
to ensure that they parallel the intentions and priorities of the OSCRMP, ar
to ensure that the updated element is consistent with other elements of t€
General Plan, such as the Parks and Recreation Element.
and Action Programs of the Open Space and Conservation Element is needc
4,
0 OPEN SPACE AND CON~AVATION RESOURCE MANAGEM P A' PLAN
MAY 20, 1992
PAGE 16
rv. ENVIRONMENTAL REvlEW
The Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan is a study, and does no1
constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental
elements, including the proposed trial and open space system would be subject to ful
environmental review.
Quality Act. The later adoption of the recommendations of this study into General Plar
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Table 3: Existing and Constrained Open Space Acreages
Table 5: Future Open Space Action Priorities
Figure 2: ExistingIApproved Open Space
Figure 3: Constrained Open Space
Figure 4: Carlsbad Trail System
Figure 5: Conceptual Open Space Lands
Figure 6: Official Open Space and Conservation Map
Figure 7: Conceptual Open Space and Conservation Map
Memo to Plakng Co&ss;on dated May 6, 1992
Draft Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan (previousl!
distributed).
TAW:vd
April 8, 1992
+s>
e 0
TABLE 3: UOSTlNG AND CONSTRAlNED
OPEN SPAC€ ACREAGES3
' The acreages of the Constrained Open Space column reflect only the
environmentally constrained land acreages not prsviously included
as part of an approved project, and do not include other constrained
elements such as railroad track beds and major poweriine
easamnt8. Constrained land acreages that were approved as part of
(L project are included in the ExistingIApproved Opm Space column.
-2 The Open Space acreages of this table may differ from acreages
delineated in the General Plan Land Use Element. The acreage8 of
this table were derived from the best sources' available.
3 The acreages estimated in this table are for use in developing plan
implementation programs only. Actual acreages shall be determined
by detailed environmental and project review. The acreages in this
table are not be used to establish 'minimum' constrained land
acreages for any zone.
"+*
0 e
v) 0) .:.
N!
N:
-
t :, -
0. -
N N -
cu c - 6 ':
(u
0,
-
c - a
c -
b'
c - mi c -
&.Y c - w .; c .: -
0)
e
a 5 f
E
F
- * U
I= g5
h$Ea
52 ge ;I q
NNZd ggq MI . .... . . .
=E q $j
a r
&a$ gyiir
3q@
~ :hi! wg$
i? 44
~ , ml cmcLL2 I .;:;;:$
mtln ' :... : ..\. :.. ...
~ 2;: ;$j ... . ..
i
47
-
A
0 a
bI/
h
*g sf $6
ei j8,z ii E[! :I z =a= a4
NNZA~ w8e MI 4, unw .... ...
-gggf ;1;Qa
%$!i iJ;mi
a
gt Et3
CUlCUd
...... ...... . ..'..?. ,:..: * ~ v)
,::..:. :::::: :;.:.:: ..... ....... .... .... ..... ......... : -
44
-. io 7 EXISTING/APPROv ED OPEN SPACt
CITY OF CARLSBAI
cam.hrmQ.ns0.E. "LI.rugmrpR
AF-RL la
w
om c;6?
flGllRE
\
i
- CONSTRAKD OPEN SPACE i 1
CIN OF CARLSBAD
bamrrrr”&
-f+--”.R.n - Iwz
w
‘- ‘\ 117 ..
a9 .M f4t
FiGuIE3
L 1
I
T
$,
6 CARLSB 6 u TRAIL SYSTEM
CllY Of CARLSBAD
brclp.kcmcbnQrrr1 ”” - 1-
w
om r.s” 6 f FlGLRE‘
-
OFFILg- OPEN SPACE & C d! 2ERVATlON MAF
I’ t CITY OF CARLSBAC
”
conWnlonAMuaunrOr
* Ap
w
1” ma
R 19s
-1 Q9m ”P
FlGLIREQ
L“
CONCEP %L OPEN SPACE & C ERVAT10N MAP
I GTP( OF CARLSBAC
conornanckaraunromrr~
camnhrrrr"4
AmL 19%
L.plrd
"" .
E3 ""
- !"-!!!== """""
"- ..""""" -I"""-
" -
"7 """- ."". ". "-
I om .5. x.
FlGlRE;
h
0 e EXHIBll
-2yr.3
0 e
0 0
Planning Commission
Paae 3
4. PRIVATE PARKS
May 6, 1992
Private Parks are not identified as an open space priority in the draft Open Space an
Conservation Resource Management Plan. However, if the open space prioritie
identified for a zone have been obtained, many types of open space, including privat
parks, should be considered toward meeting the 15-percent growth managemer
performance standard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
space performance standard if the open space priorities identified for a zone have bee
obtained, staff recommends the following changes to Policy C.24, on page 28.
To clarify that private parks may receive credit toward meeting the 15-percent ope
"-?
e Q MI. REcEi
TERRELL WATT, AlCP PLAKNIKG COXSL'LTANT
1767 UNION STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94123
(4151 563-0543 FAX 1416) 565870'1
7
7, s-f-.. 014 em- c- f Lib.
September 1, 1992
BY Facbmile
City Council
City of Carlsbad
2075 La6 Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: Proposed *tAcceptance" by the City Council of the
Comprehensive Open Space and Conservation Resource mement Plan
Dear Council Members:
This letter regarding the proposed approval of the Comprehensive Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan
( 7mPlanr' 1 is submitted on behalf of Project Future. The purpose of this letter is to apprise the City Council of Project Future's opposition to both the Plan and the process of "acceptance" of the Plan. Specifically, the Plan falls short of both the citizens desires for open space protection in CarlsSad, as well as overturns recomnendations debated at length by both the Citizens
Open Space Committee and the Open Space Advisory Committee. Moreover, the process of approval of the Plan cbntravenes the intent of state general plan laws and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
As we stated in our letter dated Hay 20, 1992 to the Planning Commission, the Plan is a great disappointment in that it lacks a concrete vision for the protection of Carlsbad's remaining significant open spaces. In qrder for the Plan to achieve a concrete vision, the Plan wouldineed to recapture the desires a6 expressed by the Save Open Spqce initiative and the Report of the Citizens Committee for Revtew of Carlsbad's Open Space Plan and Programs (Report). At a minimum, the Plan would need to:
1. Include in the category, of Environmentally
Constrained Lands, all Chlifornia gnatcatcher
habitat;
2. lunate snd mag as "propoFedtt open space, areas
dedication in exchange for rights on the remainder
of the City that are currently desired open space.
Such proposed open spaces would be required for
of existing ownerships. (This is the method used
by Orange County to acquire the Imine Coast
dedication area, Caspers Regional Park, and many
3
_.
. ' -a 0
City Council
September 1, 1992 Page 2
other noteworthy public open spaces).
3. Require more than a 15% dedication of useable open
space lands, excluding canstrained lands, hazardous lands, etc. , in return for development rights. (In many cases, required dedications by the County were in excess of 50% of the total ownership).
4. Establish mandatory fees on new development for the purchase of designated f@proposedwt open space lands.
Our specific comments are set forth below.
I. THE PLANNING PROCESS CONTRAVENES CEQA AND THE INTENT OF
"G IAWS
A. EIR IS Reauired
It is our understanding that the proposed l*acceptance'* of the Plan is to be followed by incorporation of the Plan into
the City's Open Space and Conservation elements. Project Future believes that such acceptance is tantamount to adoption of the
Plan- The Plan is clearly a pro jeet under CEQA. AR such, we believe that the Plan nust be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Delaying such review until the Plan is inCOrpOr8ted into the general plan is contrary to CEQA provis.ions which require such review as "early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment." CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b). As the court of appeal has explained:
"[ejnvironmental problems should be considered at a
point in the planning process 'where genuine flexibility remains.' rZpunt Sutro Defense Cdttee v. Regents of the universitv of California 77 Cal.App.3d 20, 34
(1978). A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decfsion- making. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc
repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA. &3. at page 35.
Clearly, the Plan contains sufficient information to undertake meaningful enviromental review at this time. In addition, since the Plan contains an approach to open space
Planning that differs both from the existing open space element
of the City, as well as the proposals by Citizens Advisory groups,
rationalization of ,agency actions that has been
2r-T
9
City Council
September 1, 1992 Page 3
now is the appropriate time to analyze the comparative impacts Of these alternative plan proposals &le flexlbkli tv still remains.
Environnental review should be completed in the form of an EIR because of the potential for significant environmental
impacts of the project including but not limited to the following:
1. Increased traffic as a result of public use of proposed
I.
open space areas and trailheadst
2. Environmental impacts of open space related improvements to trails and parks;
3. Impacts due to the loss of existing open spaces (vacant
lands) which will not remain in open space under the proposed Plan: and
4. Lass of habitat areag and potential loss of sensitive species where protected habitat is not sufficient for
long-term support of the species, as well as other
physical, significant environmental impacts of the Plan.
Since the City has embarked on a comprehensive update
of' the General Plan, the EIR €or this project should be part of a comprehensive EIR on the entire General Plan update. As such,
the Plan should not be acted upon ( or parts of the General Plan Update "accepted") until an EIR for the entire General Plan update is completed.
B. ate Publxc Participationjs Foreclosed
As the City is aware, public participation is both an essential part of the CEQA process and the general plan process. By integrating the CEQA review process into the general plan process, public participation is facilitated. The California Supreme Court has stated that CEQA should be "scrupulously
le offlclals either apDrr3ve or reject envirauw&aUy t actb, I* and will be able to "respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees.n rovemenf;
Assocaatlon v. Regents of U~aLUs2mb 47 Cal.App.3d 376, 392 (1988) (-added).
followed," so that "the public vi11 h~w the ba&s-sn whiihkdks
.I
..
In the instant action, the City is making it difficult if not impossible for its citizens to understand the basis on which its officials are acting on the Plan. The proper process is for the City to complete an EIR prior to recommending "acceptancen or other action on the Plan. ' As described above, the proper way to proceed is to complete an EIR on the entire general plan update, including the Plan as incorporated into the
5" &?
0 -. ‘e
City Council
September 1, 1992
Page 4
appropriate general plan elements.
11. THE PLAN IS INADEQUATE FOR INCLUSION INTO THE OPEN
We are informed that the Plan will be incorporated into
the Open Space and Conservation elements of the general plan, and that it is intended as an implementation document. Project Future
believes that as an implementation document the Plan is inadequate in at least the following respects:
1. The Plan fails to adequately set forth an adequate
action program consisting of specific programs which the City intends to pursue to secure open
space lands;
2. The Plan fails to inventory and desianate adequate areas for open space and conservation, and to designate them in a manner that permits ready identification of them as open space when development proposals are submitted. Specifically, open space areas which correspond to policies
requiring their protection, must be indicated on an open space map so that developers know which - areas are off-limits to development in addition to
a, 15% dedication; and
3. The Plan fails to achieve the overall purpose which is to assure recognition by the City that open- space land is a limited and vaiuable resaurce which must be conserved wherever possible, among other
cief ects .
111. THE PLAN FALLS SHORT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
$
A great deal of work by the citizens of Carlsbad has
been directed over the years to open space planning anc! preservation. Another disappointing aspect of the proposed Plan
is that it fails to live up to the fine recommendations and goals
of’the citizens. For example, the proposed Plan does not include recommendations made by the Citizen’s Committee Report. A review
Of that Report recommended the following policies which have been largely ignored:
#6 e Bf fort should be made to accumulate Open Space in the largest possible parcels and to creation natural and
manmade links between Open Space areas,..
5”
.- .
- ' "" "0 e
City Council September 1, 19S2
Page ' 5
#7. The Committee feels that it is particularly desirable to preserve Open space areas as buffers around egologically sensitive areas, to encourage development
Qf oultural/sducational amonities jn suitable Open Space areas and to JBave natural . ODB~ Space areas in theu
bural state.
In addition, the Citizens' Report contains numerous v\ItcL n =,Alia Vd4&~8Rdc~tiOno, i nnl lid i nrj rPrjnritl nu how ~pgn g~ece should ik? countea, tnac must De rec;orlr;ilru WALL LIS= yI o~~~~JI Plan-
Any departures by the proposed Plan from the Citizens' Report should be acknowledged and defended by the City prior to any aGtian on the, planr
CONCLUSION
Project Future has remained consistent in its urging of the City to undertake a comprehensive General Plan Update and concurrent EIR. Once again, we urge the City Council to follow this procedure instead of taking piecemeal action of components of the General Plan Update absent adequate environmental review.
Very truly yours, - LGL
Terry Matt On Behalf of Project Future
cc. Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
l6 :a
e e
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
myxN HEARING/ OTICE RE: EQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice OpFl
SPACE AND CONSERVATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN - -
for a -hearing before the City Council.
1
Please notice the item for the council meeting of July 14, 19!
.’ I ..
Thank you.
t
~ +#,A&& /i ,I, ,& /? / I
c
Assistant CYty Mbhager
June 1, 1992 Date
This notice is in response to complaints heard at Planning Commission,
we did not publicly notice the hearing.
6 //
W 0
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Carlsbad City Council will consider the Open Space and Conservatior Management Plan (DI 92-1) at the City Council Meeting of September 1, 1992. Thc meeting will be held at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, and will begin at 6:OO p.m.
The intent of the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan (OSCRMP) is to define, in specific terms, the objectives and actions required for the CitJ to achieve a comprehensive and integrated Open Space system by the time it i! substantially built out. The OSCRMP includes an open space inventory; recommend5 open space goals, objectives and policies; contains a Citywide action an( implementation plan; establishes action and implementation strategies for eact of the City's twenty-five Local Facilities Management Zones, contains cos1 estimates of implementing the OSCRMP; and proposes a Carlsbad Trail System.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Terri Woods, ir the Planning Department, at 438-1161, extension 4447.
PUBLISH: August 13, 1992 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
13 .- /' .
e 0
.) Carlsbad' Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. P.O. Box 230878, Encinitas, CA 92023-0878 (619) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitll
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal, a newspaper of general c:
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which n
is published for the dissemination of locaI news and intelligence of a genera1 character, a
newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription' list
subscribers,'and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular inter
said City of Oceanside, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one
preceding the date of publicat:
notice hereinafter referred to; ar
notice of which the annexed is
: '.PUBUC NOTICE copy, has been published in ea1
The Carlrbad City Council will and entire issue of said newspap
, . rervation Management Plan 1DI 92 in any supplement thereof on tl consider the Open Space and Con-
'1) at the Citycouncil Meeting of September 1. 1892. The meeting w'ill be held at the City Council Chambers. la00 Carlrbad Village Drive. Carlsbad. California. and will begin at 600 p.m.
Cgnservation Resource Manage- ment PIan(0SCRMP) is todefine. In specific terms. the objectivea and actionr requlred for the City to achieve a comprehensive and inte- &rated Open Space mem by the time it is rubstantially built out. The OSCRMP includer an open apace Inwntoy: recommendr open apace goals. objeellves 8nd poli- cies;containsaCitywideactionand Implementation plan: establirhes .action and implementation slrategies for each of the Cily's I certify under penalty of perjul
mates of implementing the
' Trail System. OSCRMP: and proposer a Carlsbad Carlsbad, County of San Diegc
i If you have any questions regard- ing this matter. please contact Ter- California on the 13th - ri Woods. in the Planning Depart- ment. at -1161. externion 4447. day of CWSBAD CITY COUNCIL
ing dates, to-wit:
' The intent of (be Open Space and August 13
Ltwentylive Local Facilitien Man. j Wernent Zones. conthins -t esti- foregoing is true and correct. E
uugust, lY!32-
? U 3121: Aupud 13. looz mQ ! 27 t, L/U 1/ 1. Clerk of
A
1 e e c-' e//+/ @our
May 11,1996
cf'v Y)3Q
e47-y ut e2$&
Mayor Ciaude Lewis
1200 Carisbad VilIiage Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I would like to address issues related to the Proposed Carlsbad Trail System ,
(AB #13,652) 9 item number 9 on the May 12 City Council Agenda.
Unfortunately due to a potential schedule conflict I may not be able to speak
to this item in person, so I am asking that this letter be included as part of the
public comment section in the Council Meeting.
I have reviewed the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP), Open Space
proposed trail sections, and the staff report prepared for tonight's meeting.
I support the concept of city wide trails overali, however, I am concerned that
the citizens of Carlsbad may never see a trail system implemented.
One thing that Carlsbad City Council prides itself in is orchestrating a
forward-thinkingcity approach to growth and development. However, with
the accelerated development taking place now that the North County
economy is seeing an upturn, many of the proposed trail segments may be lost
unless the City takes action.
I encourage the Council to review the attached copy of survey results
published in one a recent publication the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Foundations newsletter. Each fair we do surveys, the overwhelming response
for the public is additional hiking/walking trails.
I know that the cities of De1 Mar, Poway and SoIana Beach just to name a
few, have implemented very successful trails throughout their communities.
Such a forward-thinking city as Carlsbad should be able to come to a
consensus as to how to get a trail system on track as well.
The following are a few recommendations I urge you to consider when
deciding on tonight's Resolution No. 96-175.
and Conservation Resource Management Plan (OSO) including the
0 e
rl
1. Formulate a subcommittee to review and update the trail portion of the
OSCRMP. This sub-committee should review how other cities such as San
Diego (Mission Trails), Poway, Del Mar, Agoura Hills, etc. have implemented
and paid for their very successful trail systems. This sub-committee should
also look at potentially scaling back or rerouting some of the proposed trails
and looking for alternating financing to make a Carhbad Trail System a
reality.
2. I believe that the City should start with small portion of trail system that
would act as a demonstration trail of sort. This would provide the City a
more accurate gage as to the real public interest in trails and the associated
costs. It would also be something the City could point to as a sample of what
the entire Trail System would entail. This way if the entire Trail System
eventually would require a bond measure vote, at least the public would see
what they are voting on.
3. Require that developers bond for future trails and notify all potential
homeowners in the development of the future trail dedication. Ideally the
overall trail plan should be in place before the bond requirement. However
if development takes place without an associated trail requirement, it may be
too late financially and politically to require and finance a trail in those
areas. I believe it would be more cost effective for the City to release the
bonds in areas that ultimately will not require trail than visa versa.
Obviously, it is extremely urgent that the sub-committee mentioned in item
one above formulate the overall plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely A&
4781 Gateshead Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 434-6581
CC: Carlsbad City Cmcii Carlsbad City Manager
I . e e ..
I
Survey Results
Last May at the Spring Village Faire in Carlsbad, we conducted a survey to find out what tyl
recreation the public would like to see on and around the lagoon. We broke down the recrei
activities into eight categories. People could choose more than 1 activity so the results add
over 100 percent. If you were not part of the survey, please let us know how you would liE
see recreation on and around the lagoon pursued!!
Percentage of responden
Recreational Activity interested in the activiQ
I. BeacNshureline accesslswimming areas
2. Passive use (windsurf, sailboat., etc.)
3. Passive use (paddle/rowboat, kayak, canoe, etc.)
5. Trails (hiking trails, lookout points, benches)
6. Wildlife Marsh Enhancement
7. Power Activities (Jetski)
8. Power Activities (water-ski and recreational power boating)
4. Fishing (boat and shoreline)
2ay0
27%
28%
18%
46%
32%
12%
14%
Trail System Alert!
According to an article in the Blade-Citizen, many of the proposed coastal trails in
California may be lost if public agencies refuse to take responsibility for them. In
exchange for building permits. landowners were required to offer trails and beach
property for public access. Within 2 1 years the easements will be returned to the
property owners if a public agency has not formally adopted them. Of the 1,269 access
sites only 247 have been adopted. Many public agencies cannot afford maintenance,
improvements or liability.
The City of Carlsbad has developed a plan for a trail system as part of the Open Space
and Conservation Resource Management Plan. This plan includes a total of 74 miles of
pedestrian, bicycle, and joint use trails. One of the objectives of the trail systems is to
connect the community parks located throughout the city. A trial is proposed on both the
north and south shores of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Here in Carlsbad we are facing some of the same problems as the coastal trails in
California. As an example, a section of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon trail is planned on
the site of the Hubbs-Sea World fish hatchery site. However, for it to be developed, a
public agency must take responsibility for the maintenance and liability.
One of the main goals of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation is to increase
opportunities for public access to the lagoon. A trail system is an excellent way to enjoy
our lagoon. We encourage you to communicate your support for the Carlsbad Trail
System to ow City Council.