Loading...
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,