HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-18; City Council; 13706; Citywide trail system (proposed)" C
W CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL a 6
.?I +
0
CITY MGR. G DEPT. CA 2
CITYATTY. 2 PROPOSED ClTMllDE TRAIL SYSTEM 6/18/96 MTG. cd
DEPT. HD. - TITLE: AB# /< 706 G
P
C
5 /
c u z RECOMMENDED ACTION: GI I4 .rl (d
u k Choose one of the alternatives discussed below and direct staff to return with the
appropriate implementing documents. Staff supports Alternative No. 1. a, 44 z I ITEM EXPLANATION:
0
g .rl . on om 34 $4 -I4 ocd mu CaJ 05 c)
00 U
UW
*rl 3m Val aJLI k2 :: -2
50 aa, am g-
At its meeting of May 14, 1996, the City Council discussed the proposed Citywide Tra
System. The City Council accepted the Open Space and Conservation Resource
Management Plan in 1992 which sets forth the remaining land needed to be acquire(
proposed Citywide Trail System, the costs for land acquisition, trail improvements anc
maintenance costs. The Council approved an appropriation of $25,000 to update the
portion of that plan to provide updated and revised cost estimates. Changed circums
should result in a cost savings in the proposed trail system due to potential realignme
trails and land set aside for habitat preserves. The Council also:
~
0 Directed staff to require developers to provide adequate security through bonds, let
credit, cash or other acceptable security for future trail improvements;
9 2 .rl 0 Return to Council for determination of whether a measure should be placed on the l mcd
o 6I-I authorizing the financing of a Citywide Trail System;
n 3aJ c
*rl W Y i 5;
5 $40
*rl u u c a, .rl
u4LI
c) mu $4 g-43
(0 5m
? &lo a zs
PI
(dlu u7 +J 4+J (d .rl 3 E OW
$ =a)
The proposed Citywide Trail System is included as part of the Open Space and Conse
Element of the City's General Plan. Acquisition of open space for outdoor recreation,
including trails, is listed as a top citywide priority. (Open Space and Conservation Elen
page 11, table 3). As part of its discussion on May 14, 1996, the Council also directed
return with a recommendation for a determination as to whether or not a measure shot
placed on a future ballot authorizing the financing of a Citywide Trail System. The purl
this agenda bill is to consider whether or not to place such a measure on a future ballo
as a discussion of other alternatives,
ALTERNATIVE I
.E 00 H uw
* 544 0 Do not place the financing of the proposed Citywide Trail Svstem on the ballot at tt
but instead require developers to construct trail segments, acquire land as necess;
gz establish an appropriate maintenance district to maintain trail seqments as they are \' m constructed. 2hl ., \' a-
W e
Agenda Bill No. /3 7~4
Under this alternative, the Council would not submit any matter to the voters on the
November 1996 ballot. Instead, the City would immediately begin to require the
construction of the proposed Citywide Trail System in segments so that no opportur
the Trail System added to the district as they are constructed. The City could also :
land as necessary as it becomes available or to complete links between the segmel
According to the I992 OSCRMP, the estimated land acquisition costs are $397,00C
would not trigger a Proposition H (CMC Chapter 1.24) election.
This alternative is based on the principle that it has already been determined that hi
public trail system is important to the quality of life in Carlsbad. The City Council ha
already approved the master plan for the Citywide Trail System. Rather than takins
or nothing perspective, a “phasing” approach could be utilized so that no opportunit
lost.
The irrevocable offers of dedication of trail lands on a subdivision map remain valid
years. (Gov.Code $66477.2 and CCP $771 .OlO).
are lost. Some form of a maintenance district could be established now and segme
ALTERNATIVE II
0 Place an advisory measure on the November 1996 ballot to be followed up with a
measure on the November 1998 ballot authorizing financinq. - The Council may sut
advisory measure to the citizens requesting their opinion on this issue. (Elec. Code
9603.) The advisory question would in substance ask the voters whether or not the
Council should proceed with the proposed Citywide Trail System and seek spendin!
alternatives. This could be accomplished by submitting a question to the voters
substantially as follows:
“Should the City Council pursue the feasibility of a Citywide Trail System
and appoint a Trails Advisory Citizens’ Committee to make
recommendations to the City Council on specific funding mechanisms,
but excluding the City’s General Fund, and place one or more funding
proposals on the November 1998 ballot?”
Depending on the specific financing proposals submitted, the ballot will either requi
simple or a two-thirds majority vote for their approval. (Prop. 13, Prop. 62, or the PI
November 1996 Constitutional Amendment entitled “Taxpayers’ Right to Vote Act”.:
ALTERNATIVE 111
0 Place a bindinq measure on the ballot approvinq the Trails Svstem and authorizing
funding. -The Council could place a measure on the November 1996 ballot authorii
funding for acquisition and construction of the Citywide Trail System. As previousl)
discussed, this would pertain to those portions of the trail that are not anticipated tc
obtained by dedication, donation, prior public ownership or otherwise, at no expens
2
’ Agenda Bill No. 4 g 04 e
City. We do not have the benefit of the revised cost estimates that will result from tt
update to the 1992 OSCRMP.
The 1992 estimates contained in the OSCRMP are:
Land Acquisition (25 acres) $ 397,000
Construction of Trail Improvements 2,271,000
Total one-time construction costs $2,268,000
Many conditions have changed since the OSCRMP was accepted by the Council in
and changed circumstances should result in cost savings due to potential realignmc
trails and land set aside for habitat preserves. In all likelihood, revised cost estimatl
not be available in time to submit them to the voters. Instead, the Council could lim
obligation submitted to the voters and fund the difference, if any, from other source!
questions submitted to the voters on the ballot exceeds one million dollars in expen
not from special assessments, then a majority vote is required under the City’s Pror
H (CMC Chapter 1.24).
ALTERNATIVE IV
0 Do not place anv matter on the 1996 ballot, acquire land as necessary and conside
funding options including placinq a matter on the 1998 ballot and accept trail impro\
when and if constructed.
Under this alternative, the Council would not submit any matter to the voters in the
November 1996 ballot. Instead, it would acquire the land as necessary so that the
ability to construct this trail in the future is not prejudiced and would further investig;
funding options. It could direct staff to do the necessary studies and/or appoint a ci
committee to make funding recommendations, including submitting specific propos;
the electors in November 1998. According to the 1992 OSCRMP the estimated Ian
acquisition costs are $397,000. This amount would not trigger a Proposition H (CM
Chapter 1.24) election.
ALTERNATIVE V
Continue to acquire properties throuqh dedication and consider issue at a future date.
Council could take no action at this time and consider the issue at a future date. The C
would continue acquiring properties through dedication consistent with OSCRMP in tht
interim. The City would also continue the policy of requiring bonds or other security fol
eventual future construction of those portions of the trail so dedicated.
A matter submitted for the November 1996 election must be received by the County Rc
of Voters by Friday, August 9, 1996. This would require Council to adopt a resolution
approving the specific language to be submitted on the ballot prior to this deadline. TI.
deadline for receipt of primary arguments and for the City Attorney’s
3
Agenda Bill No. 8d *
impartial analysis is August 26, 1996 and the deadline for receipt of rebuttal arguments
September 5, 1996.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review is required for this information item. Submittals of proposals c
to the voters are exempt from environmental review (14 CCR § 15378), as are feasibilit
planning studies when funding is not approved (14 CCR § 15262).
FISCAL IMPACT:
There will be a range of impacts depending on which alternative is selected by the City
Council. There will be costs of an election if the Council places the matter on the Nove
1996 or November 1998 ballots. The estimated cost of such a regular election is betwf
$5,000 to $10,000.
There will be a range of impacts depending on which alternative is selected by the City
Council. If Council places the matter on the ballot during a regular election, the cost is estimated at $5,000 to $10,000,
No source of revenue is available at this time to fund a citywide trail system. In May 19
Council approved funding to update the trail portion of the OSCRMP. Staff will return tc
Council with revised costs for land acquisition, trail improvements, and trail maintenanc
well as options for financing land acquisition and construction. At this time only the OS
project costs for a citywide trail system are available.
The 1992 report listed the following estimated costs for the trail system:
Land Acquisition (25 acres) $ 397,000
Construction of trail improvements 2,271,000
Total one time costs $ 2,668,000
Annual maintenance costs Beginning at $340,000 and rising to $416,001
Changed circumstances should result in cost savings for the citywide trail system due tl
potential realignment of trails and land set aside for habitat preserves. Annual trail
maintenance costs are expected to start out at a lower annual amount than estimated i
OSCRMP. Beginning maintenance costs should be lower than projected in the OSCRl
to fewer miles of trails in the early years than originally planned. The update of the trail
of the OSCRMP will provide more accurate costs estimates for City Council review.
EXHIBITS:
1. Trail financing status
2. Trail implementation status
4
- -.. " =- -=u * -" ./-S,i+: i
A p," [{p- L (;A , i @vL L LJ TI "'
$7
June 25,1996
Mayor Claude Lewis
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
CarIsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I would like to express my thanks tu you and the city councii for iacludhg my letrev
dated May 11, rcgardjng the Proposed Csrfsbad Trail System (AB #13,652) into
the council record for tbat evenhg. X woaM 496 like to take this opportunity to
clarifjr and testate some issues addressed in that le#ter.
Tbe follawlng relates to Agenda Item 13, AB W13.706 Proposed Citywide Trail
System, in tonight's city council meeting. I appreciate your consideration to include
the following as part of the public comment section of tonight's Councii Meeting.
One of Carisbad biggest assets is its open space and balance growth. I believe the
city officials have done a good job ofmaixrtaiaiag a balance of community growth
and management of the open space. I recognize that maintaining sensible ec.onomic
and community growth while preserving opea space is a wry challenging endeavor. I befieve that the city's approach to managed growth is what keeps tbe quality of life
in Carlsbad among the highest in the county. However, recent reports that
Carlsbad is topping the Iisr of to4 communities for new iievelopment projects shoutd at Ieast mise coneern for our continued quality of life in CarIsbad. This
accelerated dmdopment coupled with the patentid to hie miles Of trail# and Open
space access is the catalyst of my letter.
1 can not state strongly enough how important it is that the city council took at ways
to provide the citizens with opes space access now before the opportunities ate lost
for good. I am very aware that the city must prioritize it's expenditures Thus,
looking for ways to cut the ovcrail cost of the twit system and alternative funding
sources need to be considered. There are a number of cith with much smailer
budgets than Carlsbad's that have found ways to implement very nice sad
successful trail systems for the citizens of their commuailies. 1 encourage the city
look to these models to determine the best approach to provide the citizens of
Carisbad with a cost effective tmil system.
~ #'
J e 0
The following are a few recommendations 1 urge you to consider when deciding on tonight's Agcnda Bill 13,706:
1. The City should sadopt a11 all or nothing approach to the trail system. Ideally
it would be great to have a trail system as grandiose as that specified in the Opm Space and Consemtion Resource Management Plan (OSCRMP), however, even a
very basic tAl system with trailheads, slimpie dirt grading, and periodic seating
~MS Its be* than nothing. Yon an always go back and improve B basic trail is
altemaiive funding is available in the future. it is not so easy to go back a build B
trail system once all the open space is developed.
2. Rquire developers to construct the trail aegmeub they are responsible for as
their devdopment Qkes place. If development tskes place without an associated
trail requirement, that segment of trail may be lost forever, thus imparthg the continuity of the ovmtl hi1 system. There are a few such segments surrounding
Aqua Ndionda Lagoon $or instance, which will be lost unftsa the city taka action
SOO11.
3. The Aqua Hedidado Lagoon Foundation (AHLF) encourages tfie City accept
dtdication of the segment of hi4 on the north shore of Aqus Hedionda Lagoon in
front of the Hubb&eawo*ld fish hatchery from Cmrlsbad Borritvard to the
Rlikoad track The Aqua Hedionda Lagoon Foundatioa is wining to assist the city
with this id and pohiidy other tMil segments surrounding the lagoon.
4. AHLF does not snpport the currently proposed overaU mil aystem be phced on
a ballot at this time. There just is not enough information to warrant a rcsiistic
.vote. Instead, we mornmend the city look into the real costs associated with t trmil
and see if it can be devtloped with out a major burden placed on the taxpayer.
Items number 3 and 4 above have the ovcrwhtlmJng support of the Aqua Hedionda
Lagoon Foundation, which I swc as President. Other comments in this letter have
not been oflidally voted oli by our Board, thus should be taken as my personal
comments, and not necessary &e view of the foundation at this time.
Thank you for your msidcratiofl.
zdp m King
4781 Gateshead oad
Carisbad, CA 92008
(619) 434-6581
CC klsbad Citv Cmi Carisbad city Manager
w w
-_-
CARLSBAD TRAIL
CITY OF
Q! COASTAL RAIL TRAIL (CITY CONSTRUCT OR GRANT/DEVELOPER ENHANCE) -
- 13-17 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE BOUNDARY
w v
CARLSBAD TRAIL:
CITY OF
-
I
. . - . -. . .
m CARLSBAD TRAIL SYSTEM
H EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
~ @ TRAILS CONSTRUCTED
@ TO BE DEDICATED AND CONSTRUCTED
@ TRAILS APPROVED AS PART OF MASTER OR SPECIFIC PLAN
@ TRAILS (TO BE) CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF A CITY PARK
TRAILS ARE A CONDITION OF PROJECT APPROVAL
I I I,