HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-26; Growth Management Citizens Committee; ; Committee Business (2)
Meeting Date: Jan. 26, 2023
To: Growth Management Citizens Committee
Staff Contact: Eric Lardy, City Planner
Eric.Lardy@carlsbadca.gov
Sarah Lemons, Communication & Engagement
Sarah.Lemons@carlsbadca.gov
Subject
Committee Business
Recommended Action
Receive presentations and discuss the following topics:
• Climate Action Plan. Receive a presentation on the Carlsbad Climate Action Plan and what
the city is doing around renewable energy, power, environmental sustainability, etc.
• Local Electric Power Generation and Renewable Energy and Environmental
Sustainability/Climate Change. Participate in a committee discussion to determine direction
for the preceding topics.
• Open Space Standard. Receive presentation on history and status open space in exempt
zones. Discuss and make committee recommendation. See Exhibit 1.
• Quality of Life Report Outline. Review and confirm outline and items to be addressed. See
Exhibit 2.
• Draft Standards Pages. Review and confirm draft language to be included in final report. See
Exhibit 3.
Fiscal Analysis
This action has no fiscal impact.
Environmental Evaluation
In keeping with California Public Resources Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a
“project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that it has no potential to
cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment. Therefore, it does not require environmental review.
Public Notification and Outreach
This item was noticed in keeping with the Ralph M. Brown Act and it was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. Open Space Standard Background and Benchmarking
2. Memorandum – Recommendations for Arts and Culture and Growth Management
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE @) Staff Report
1
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT – Exhibit 1
February 22, 2023
CURRENT OPEN SPACE STANDARD
Fifteen percent of the total land area in the Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ)
exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land must be set aside
for permanent open space and must be available concurrent with development.
Applicability of the standard: the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan specifies that the open
space standard applies in Local Facilities Management Zones 11 – 15 and 17 – 25. The standard does
not apply in Zones 1 – 10 and 16. See Attachment 1 for a history of why the standard does not apply to
all zones and see Attachment 2 for a breakdown of open space citywide and by Local Facility
Management Zone.
BENCHMARKING
Research was conducted to learn how Carlsbad’s open space standards compare to those of other
jurisdictions. Our literature search surveyed national databases, urban and park planning publications,
and websites of twelve Southern California jurisdictions. We selected a mix of San Diego-area and
Orange County jurisdictions that, like Carlsbad, have a history of master planned communities as well as
infill development, participate in habitat planning efforts, and are committed to maintaining a high
quality of life. We focused on coastal communities that have natural open space amenities in addition
to developed active parks. Our research of other cities included a review of their general plan policies,
park master plans (when available), municipal code development regulations, and a sampling of specific
plans. Direct comparisons were difficult as cities define and secure open space in different ways, but all
cities surveyed placed a high value on open space and considered it as an important component of their
character and quality of life. See Attachment 3 for the full results of the benchmarking research.
Highlights from the data is discussed below. Data was not found for all categories in every city surveyed.
OVERALL FINDINGS
Key points
• Most project-based open space requirements are a factor of zoning, and most are related to
habitat conservation
• Most open space preserve efforts are related to habitat conservation, with acquisition through a
mix of developer exactions, environmental mitigation, and public funding.
• Carlsbad has stringent lot coverage and open space requirements for development in all zones
that continues to be implemented regardless of the growth management open space standard.
• Carlsbad is doing well over the State of California’s 30% target for open space
• The growth management open space standard was based on the development conditions in
1986, including the existing (urbanized) and planned development patterns. The 1986 challenge
2
of acquiring open space in urbanized areas remains the same challenge today when most of the
developable areas of the city are now developed.
• Although the growth management open space standard is not applicable in all areas of the city,
open space is provided in all Local Facility Management Zones, some in excess of the standard
(see Attachment 2).
• City of Carlsbad continues to allocate funds for acquisition of open space; however,
opportunities for available land are limited.
How do Carlsbad’s growth management open space requirements compare to other
cities open space requirements?
Carlsbad’s requirements differ from most other jurisdictions. No directly comparable examples were
found of cities requiring recreational open space/project amenity space as a percentage of land area
either citywide or by sector and excluding biological resource lands from consideration. However, some
jurisdictions include requirements for project open space as a percentage of a project’s site area. In
addition, it is not unusual to exclude biological or other sensitive resources lands from active common
open space areas or private (per unit) open space requirements.
Carlsbad’s growth management open space standard is most comparable to other cities’ zoning code
requirements related to private or common area open space requirements. It should be noted that
Carlsbad also has zoning code requirements for lot coverage, private and public open space for planned
developments, and other zoning regulations similar to what is contained in other jurisdictions.
Private and common open space requirements
In Carlsbad, as in other cities, private and common open space may be required through the
development review process. This may apply to large or small projects, including incremental infill
development. Examples include:
Carlsbad Various development standards require open space, recreation areas and
landscaped buffers/setbacks within development projects. For example, residential
planned development projects must provide private recreation area (200 – 400
square feet per unit) and common recreation areas (150 – 200 square feet per unit);
also, residential zoning standards limit lot coverage to no more than 40% to 60%.
Encinitas Higher density single-family and multi-family residential must have a minimum of
10% private open space. The R-30 Overlay zone requires private and common open
space.
San Marcos Private open space of 50 to 250 square feet and common open space requirements
equal to 30% of livable ground floor area of all units required for residential
projects. Mixed Use Zone open space requirements vary, from 5% to 20% of
development depending on unit count, lot size, etc.
San Diego City Private exterior open space of at least 60 square feet per dwelling unit. May be in
required front yards. Common open space required for more than 4 units. At least
300 square feet, or 25 square feet per dwelling.
San Diego County Requires 100 to 800 square feet of usable open space per multi-family dwelling.
Mission Viejo Residential Planned Development Zones: 50-60% coverage; Private outdoor living
space: 50-500 square feet.
3
Open space required for planned developments and master planned communities
Carlsbad and other cities require master planned communities to provide open space set asides and
amenities, which may supplement the public park or contribute to an open space preserve. Examples of
how jurisdictions secure open space from planned development projects including lands for sensitive
resource preservation include:
Carlsbad Planned Community (PC) Zone requires 15% of the total area of a master plan to be
open space. This applies to all areas in the city zoned PC.
Chula Vista Master planning/specific plans. For example, the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan states that "approximately 60% of Otay Ranch will be set aside
as open space, including a park system, a greenbelt system and an open space
preserve." At full build out, the open space provisions are required to be at
least: 342 acres of local parks; 1,172 acres of open space (excluding regional parks);
and 1,590 acres of regional parks.
San Diego County In addition to site planning, supports mitigation banking, conservation subdivisions
and easements, diverse funding sources for acquisition, and developer exactions.
San Marcos For planned residential developments, required open space shall comprise at least
40% of the total area of the planned development project. Of the required open
space, 50% of the required open space shall be suitably improved and 50% may be
improved or left in its natural state. Floodway and drainage easement areas as
well as land occupied by recreational buildings and structures may be counted.
Irvine Conservation and Open Space Phased Dedication Districts establishes a “phased
dedication program” to implement open space goals identified in the General Plan.
Open space acreage requirements are listed by “implementation district.” Open
Space Management and Conservation Plans (OSMCP) are required for each
implementation district. The designation of specific preservation areas and
development opportunities are reflected in the Conservation and Open Space
Element and Land Use Element, and identified by lettered “districts” as described
in Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Preservation areas are designated primarily
for their biotic and cultural resources and open space values. The amount of open
space and development potential varies within each district. Open space lands
have been conveyed to the city in exchange for development rights in other areas.
Mission Viejo Per the General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element (amended in 2021)
“Mission Viejo is different from many Orange County communities in that the
privately-owned parkland in the city contributes greatly to the City's overall
recreational picture. The largest privately-owned recreational assets are Lake
Mission Viejo, Mission Viejo Country Club golf course, and Arroyo Trabuco Golf
Club…. There are also numerous recreational facilities and areas owned and
maintained by homeowner associations.”
4
How does Carlsbad’s overall open space (all types) compare to other cites?
Carlsbad’s growth management standard for open space represents one component of a broader
Carlsbad open space system that is comprised of four categories of open space, the majority (78%) of
which is conserved for protection of natural resources, and another 12.5% is outdoor recreation areas
(see Attachment 2).
Some cities identified the total acreage of various types of open spaces within their boundaries. It
should be noted that the cities surveyed do not use a common methodology or definition of what is
included as open space, so the examples below are provided for general information purposes only and
should not be viewed as direct comparisons. In addition, some of the calculations for open space
percentages were calculated using general plan land use acreages without taking into account additional
considerations or refinements that would occur as a part of a more precise assessment.
Carlsbad Open space to meet the growth management standard is just a part of all the
open space in Carlsbad. Of all land in Carlsbad (25,021 acres), 38% is designated as
open space (see Attachment 2).
Chula Vista The Chula Vista Greenbelt is a 28-mile open space system. General Plan Land Use
in 2030 identifies Parks and Recreation (978 acres), Open Space (7,306 acres),
Open Space Preserve (16,926 acres) and Open Space Active Recreation (375
acres). These planned land uses total 25,585 acres (43.6%) out of a city total of
58,700 acres (2005).
Oceanside The Oceanside Subarea Plan of the Natural Community Conservation Plan (2010)
reports on existing city land uses including: 3,429.7 acres of “agriculture,” 334.5
acres of “parks” and 2,864.1 acres of “preserves and open space” which together
comprise 25.3% of the total city acres.
San Diego 28.6% of city comprised of Park, Open Space and Recreation land use designations
(2015).
San Diego County Encompasses approximately 2.3 million acres, or 3,570 square miles. More than
67% is either open space or held by public agencies or tribal governments. Open
space preserves total 159,400 acres or 7% of the total land area in the
unincorporated County (2011).
San Marcos About 25% of the city is currently undeveloped and provides natural habitat areas.
The city has 2,499 acres of dedicated open space, which is approximately 12% of
the city’s acreage.” (2012)
Irvine The Land Use Element Table A-2 provides land use acreage by planning area, and
a citywide total acreage of 45,388. It identifies: 709 acres of agriculture open
space, 11,022 acres of preservation open space, 2,959 acres of recreation open
space, and 206 acres of water bodies which together total 14,896 acres. The
Great Park (former Marine Corp Air Station El Toro) is identified separately with
4,519 acres (however, another city web page states that the Great Park spans
1,300 acres). These categories together total 19,415 acres or 42.8% of total city
acreage. Without the Great Park, general plan designated open space comprises
14,896 acres of 40,869 acres, or 36.4%.
5
Laguna Niguel Over one-third of Laguna Niguel is designated for Open Space use (1992). Open
Space is categorized into three typologies – regional open space, local open space
(open space corridors, greenbelts, hillsides, and landscaping), and landscaped
corridors along scenic highways.
Lake Forest Table LU-1 “Land Use Development Potential Summary” identifies 3,153 gross
acres (or 29.4%) of the city total 10,742 acres in Community Park/Open Space
Regional Park Open Space, Open Space, Lake, and Transportation Corridor with
open space uses land use designations (2020).
Mission Viejo General Plan designated open space makes up 2,727.4 gross acres of the city’s
total 11,646 gross acres (23.4%), per the Land Use Element Table LU-3 (2021).
Typical categories of open space
Typical categories of open space are summarized in the table below.
Table 1 – Typical Open Space Classifications and Carlsbad Applicability
Typical Open Space
Classification
Typical Application Carlsbad Approach
Natural Habitat
Preserves/ Biologically
Sensitive areas
Regional habitat plans with
local participation.
Some contribute to General
Plan parks standards.
CEQA process. Private
developer set asides
• Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
• Regional Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program
• Private developer set asides
Neighborhood Park General Plan Population-
Based Standard
• Private development with home-owner
association maintenance
• Some Special Use Areas
Community Park General Plan Population-
Based Standard
• Growth management parks standard (also
found in General Plan)
Special Use Area Varies • Growth management parks standard (also
found in General Plan)
Parkways/Greenways Varies • Private project design
• Street design standards
• Public investments/capital improvement
projects
Landscaped
setbacks/yards
Lot coverage
Zoning regulations • Growth management open space standard
• Zoning regulations
Private development
per unit or common
recreational open space
Zoning regulations • Growth management open space standard
• Zoning regulations
Significant landforms/
steep slopes
Cultural resources
Zoning regulations, planned
development permit
conditions. CEQA process.
May be a part of habitat plans, designated open
spaces or parks, or project open spaces that
may or may not be counted toward the growth
management open space standard.
Development permit conditions. CEQA process.
6
What are common tools/processes for open space preservation?
Open space preservation is opportunity based and case-by-case, depending on a jurisdiction’s natural
features and availability of undeveloped land. Active parks can be created, but natural open space
preserves are usually valued for their intrinsic features and location, such as a beach, river, canyon or
lagoon. Open space is often acquired through developer exactions, but there is also a typically a
publicly funded component.
• Resource-based land acquisition may be secured through development project
exactions/subdivision dedications, environmental avoidance of impacts and mitigation through
the CEQA process, zoning requirements to protect sensitive resources, development impact fees
and transfer of development rights, and other tools.
• Public funding, including state and federal grants are used to acquire and protect open space.
Voters have shown a willingness to approve initiatives and bond measures for open space and
parks acquisition at the local, regional and state levels. Favorable tax policies have also played a
role in land conservation.
• Open space that also is considered parkland may be secured through general plan park
standards, and parks master plans or trails master plans may include implementation measures.
• Land trusts, non-profits, and philanthropists may be partners in preservation.
BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad implements its growth management open space standard through the approval of
Local Facility Management Plans and development projects. In the Local Facility Management Zones
where the standard applies, the Local Facility Management Plan identifies how the open space standard
will be met in the zone; and development proposals within those zones must provide open space
consistent with the standard and Local Facility Management Plan. An example of open space provided
to meet the growth management open space standard is private open space, such as recreation areas
and landscape buffers, within a development that is paid for and maintained by the developer and
community (HOA). A thorough analysis of the history and application of Carlsbad’s growth management
open space standard is provided in Attachment 4.
As also discussed in the Sept. 22, 2022, staff report, the growth management open space standard is not
the only method the city uses to acquire and protect open space. In general, Carlsbad and other cities
can obtain open space through dedications or fees from developers for public facilities
and can require a certain amount of land in a development be left in open space. When requiring open
space on privately owned land, cities must ensure the owner is not denied a reasonable use of their
land and that the owner is not denied the right to develop their property, unless the owner is willing to
sell their land and is compensated. Attachment 4 describes the tools Carlsbad has used to obtain,
provide, and protect open space. In addition to the open space standard, Carlsbad has zoning
regulations that apply in all areas of the city, including lot coverage requirements, private and public
open space requirements for planned residential developments, and other zoning regulations that meet
the same intent to provide open spaces for residents.
Open space to meet the growth management standard is just a part of all the open space in Carlsbad. Of
all land in Carlsbad (25,021 acres), 38% is designated as open space. About 78% of this open space is
comprised of natural open space such as native habitats, lagoons, and streams. The city’s open space
7
network boasts three lagoons, over 67 miles of trails, and almost seven miles of coastline. Attachment 2
includes a map of all dedicated open space in Carlsbad, of which some is open space dedicated to meet
the open space standard. Open space overall has been designated throughout Carlsbad in four
categories: preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation,
and aesthetic, cultural and educational purposes.
LEGAL BASIS
Federal law has had a large impact on open space protection through legislation including the
Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. The Endangered Species Act provides opportunities
for coordinated habitat protection planning through the preparation of habitat conservation plans.
California Government Code section 65302(e) requires cities to adopt an open space element as part of
their general plans. Open space is defined as any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially
unimproved and devoted to open-space use, and that is designated on a local, regional or state open-
space plan, including open space for the preservation of natural resources and open space for outdoor
recreation (Gov. Code § 65560(b)). Such lands or waters may provide value related to, among other
things, recreation, health, habitat, biodiversity, wildlife conservation aesthetics, economy, climate
change mitigation and adaptation, flood risk reduction, managed natural resources production,
agricultural production, and protection from hazardous conditions.
California has enacted many laws that have resulted in or provided tools for open space conservation.
To name a few, the California Endangered Species Act allows for the preparation of Natural Community
Conservation Plans to promote a broad-based ecosystem approach to planning for the protection of
biological diversity, the Coastal Act has requirements for coastal resource preservation and public access
to the coast, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) calls for avoidance and mitigation of
environmental impacts. CEQA has played an important role in preserving open space as projects may be
designed to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts. Mitigation can include contributing to regional
open space systems through offsite acquisition, thus supporting regional open space systems.
Acknowledgement of the importance of open space preservation is growing in California and globally.
On Oct. 7, 2020, Governor Newsome signed Executive Order N-82-20 establishing a goal to conserve at
least 30% of California’s land and coastal waters by 2030 (note: Carlsbad has met this goal by conserving
38% of the total city area, including land, lagoons and wetlands). The goal is to support the global effort
to combat the biodiversity and climate crisis. California's “Pathways to 30x30” strategy to achieve this
goal was released in April 2022. Implementation of the strategy will be led by the California Natural
Resources Agency through the 30x30 Partnership (an alliance of groups and leaders) and others.
RELATIONSHIP TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Open space is valued for many reasons, including habitat protection, landform preservation, scenic
views, local heritage/culture, tourism, shaping urban form, rural character and farmland preservation,
public access and recreation, and green infrastructure/ecosystem services. As such, open space is often
an important part of city and regional growth management or smart growth plans. Using tools such as
open space standards, transfer of development rights, zoning, conservation easements, and subdivision
dedications jurisdictions are able to preserve open space through regulations, exactions and incentives.
In addition to what is secured through the development review process on a case-by-case basis,
jurisdictions will also typically allocate funding for land acquisition to add important parcels to
8
preserves. Locally and statewide, citizens have shown a willingness to tax themselves to provide funding
for parks and open spaces. From 2000 to 2022, voters approved nearly $66.8 billion in funding for land
conservation in local and state referenda (see the Trust for Public Land's LandVote database).
Zoning is an important tool to secure project-level open space. Zoning may limit development potential
through land use and density/intensity regulations, and may have standards for site coverage, yards and
setbacks, per unit open space or other recreational amenities, and pedestrian pathways. As described
by Alexander Garvin in Planners Advisory Service (PAS) Report Number 497/498,1 there is a long history
of mandating minimum private open space in developments. When first required in the nineteenth
century, the regulations were in response to public health concerns as millions of immigrants were living
in cramped, poorly ventilated apartments. Garvin reports that the idea of requiring open space has
been “universally accepted in the form of zoning and subdivision yard and setback regulations” to
ensure access to air and sunlight, and to reflect design preferences. Garvin further states that in the
1960s cities used planned unit developments as a tool to secure more usable common open space
areas. Growing environmental concerns also led to new legislation and open space protections.
The value of a systems-based approach to parks and open space planning is described by the authors of
“From Recreation to Re-creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space System Planning” in PAS
Report Number 551.2 This report recommends treating open space lands as important components of
modern park systems due to their many contributions to quality of life, including recreational value.
Chapter Four of this report analyzed park plans from across the United States including a review of level
of service measurements. The author found that many jurisdictions based their standards on a
combination of benchmarks from other cities plus local level of service goals based on accessibility. This
report did not cite examples of distinct open space standards that were separate from park standards.
Overall report recommendations found in Chapter Six of this PAS Report include to “consider how the
park system is integrated in the community and how it is linked to the various resources in the
community, including the community’s natural systems, infrastructure, and land use.” Identified
management tools include creating “subdivision regulations that identify land to be preserved as open
space based on certain qualities and values ….” The PAS Report also notes that partnerships with other
public, private, and nonprofit organizations can play an important role in park provision and
maintenance.
In California, climate change, public health, social equity and environmental justice legislation and
initiatives have provided additional impetus to expanding parks and open space systems and access.
Many California jurisdictions pursue open space through the planning of master planned communities in
addition to implementing subdivision and zoning regulations. Project-based open space may include
land for recreation as well as natural resource preservation, storm water management and landscaped
features or other amenities. Master planning tools such as specific plans are frequently used to guide
the development of large projects built on vacant “greenfields” land. Land trusts also play an important
1 Garvin, Alexander. “Parks, Recreation, and Open Space: A Twenty-First Century Agenda.” Planners Advisory
Service (PAS) Report Number 497/498, 2000.
2 Barth, David, Mary Eysenbach, Peter Harnik, Megan Lewis, and Lee Springgate. “From Recreation to Re-creation:
New Directions in Parks and Open Space System Planning.” PAS Report Number 551, 2008.
9
role in supporting collaborative conservation efforts in California.3 Regarding the role of nonprofits, the
Greenbelt Alliance in the San Francisco Bay Area provides an example of a group that has contributed to
open space preservation and climate resiliency through policy advocacy and regional collaboration
across nine counties.4
Attachments
1. Jan. 24, 2023, Memo from Mike Howes on History of Open Space and Local Facility Management
Zones
2. Open Space Citywide and by Local Facility Management Zones
3. Benchmarking Table
4. Carlsbad Tomorrow – Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report, Sept. 22, 2022, Open
Space Standard
3 California Council of Land Trusts website https://www.calandtrusts.org/ accessed on 2/6/2023.
4 Greenbelt Alliance website https://www.greenbelt.org accessed on 2/6/2023.
ATTACHMENT 1
MEMO
Date: January 24, 2023
To: Growth Management Committee
From: Mike Howes
Subject: Local Facilities Management Zones
INTRODUCTION
At the January 11th meeting the committee asked staff to provide a detailed explanation of why some
of the zones were exempted from the 15% open space requirement while others had to provide the
15%. I realize that this can be confusing for the Committee since very few of the members were around
Carlsbad when the Growth Management Plan was created, and the boundaries of the Local Facilities
Management Plans (LFMZs) were drawn. Committee members must remember that 40 years ago
Carlsbad was a much different City than it is now. When the Growth Management Plan and LFMZs were
drawn up most of Carlsbad was undeveloped. The recent addition of the Carlsbad Magazine included
several historical photos, most of which accurately represent what Carlsbad looked like when the
Growth Management Plan was prepared.
In addition, it will be very difficult for staff to attempt to find detailed records of how the Local Facility
Management Zones were formed and why some were exempted. The City did not have computers at
that time, we had to handwrite our staff reports and then give them to secretaries to type up and
format. Any detailed records will probably be on micro-fiche if they exist, and staff could go blind
attempting to go through those records. Finally, most of the staff were in elementary school when the
City prepared the Growth Management Plan.
At that last Committee meeting I mentioned that I drew up the boundaries of the 25 LFMZs that are
shown on the attached exhibit. After I drew up a draft exhibit of these boundaries it was reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director and Community Development Director. The boundaries of the
various zones were based on existing development, existing or pending Master Plans and ownership
boundaries during the early 1980’s.
I did NOT single handedly create the Growth Management Plan; I was just a part of the team. However,
I am one of the few people still around that was involved in the process and I will attempt to provide an
explanation of what occurred to counter the misleading information that has been provided by some of
the City’s critics and no growthers.
URBANIZED, URBANIZING OR FUTURE URBANIZING
After the Citywide Growth Management Plan was created staff realized that there were different levels
of development throughout the City, so the City was divided into 25 Local Facility Management Zones.
These Zones were divided into three categories, Urbanized, Urbanizing and Future Urbanizing. Zones 1-
6 were classified as Urbanized because at that time 95% of the existing development in Carlsbad was in
these zones, while most of the rest of the City consisted of undeveloped, vacant land. In addition,
almost all the public facilities to serve these six zones were already in place. The 15% open space
requirement was not placed on these zones because there were relatively few vacant parcels that could
be utilized for open space. It could have been considered at taking if the City attempted to down zone
those few vacant parcels for open space to create 15% open space in these zones.
2
Zones 7-10 were classified as Urbanizing because there was some level of master planning for these
portions of the City. Zones 7,8,9, and 10 were exempted from the 15% requirement because they either
had approved Master Plans or were in the process of approving a Master Plan. The City did not believe
it was reasonable to require an approved Master Plan or a Master Plan that had been in process for
several years to be revised to comply with the 15% open space requirement of the recently approved
Growth Management Plan.
Zone 16 was exempted because it was designated for non-residential development. At that time the
City did not require non-residential LFMZs to provide 15% open space.
Zones 13-25 were classified as Future Urbanizing since there was no level of planning for the
development of these areas other than their General Plan designations. For those that are interested, in
the following paragraphs I will provide a description of how the boundaries were created for each zone
and why they were or were not required to provide 15% open space.
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES
Zone 1 – This is the heart of Old Carlsbad bounded on the north by Buena Vista Lagoon, south by Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and El Camino Real to the east. This area was pretty much built out when the Growth
Management Plan was created. There were a few vacant lots, but not enough to create 15% open space
and the City did not have the funds to purchase developable property and turn it into open space.
Zone 2 – This area is bounded by Highway 78 to the north, Tamarack to the south and El Camino Real to
the west and the Calavera Hills Master Plan to the east. This was the developed portion of Carlsbad east
of El Camino Real at that time. Like Zone 1 there were no large undeveloped parcels in this zone.
Zone 3 – This LFMZ basically included the power station, Terramar area, Car Country, and non-
residential parcels south of Palomar Airport Road. Like Zones 1 & 2 there were no large vacant parcels
in this zone that could be used for the 15% open space requirement.
Zone 4 – This LFMZ included Alta Mira and existing residential development south of Alta Mira. Similar
to the previously discussed zones there were few vacant parcels in Zone 4.
Zone 5 – The boundaries of this LFMZ basically covered the area around the airport that was designated
for office/industrial development. A substantial portion of this zone was developed or had development
plans when the Growth Management Plan was created. This LFMP was exempted from the 15% Open
Space requirement because the City did not require non-residential development to provide 15% OS.
Zone 6 – This was the developed portion of La Costa at the time of the creation of the LFMZ, sometimes
referred to as Old La Costa. Like Zones 1, 2,3 and 4 there were relatively few vacant parcels in this Zone.
Zone 7 – The boundaries of this zone correspond with the boundaries of the Calavera Hills Master Plan.
The Calavera Hills Master Plan was in effect when the Growth Management Plan was developed and
some of the earliest neighborhoods in the Master Plan were under construction. The City did not
believe it was reasonable to mandate that an approved Master Plan be required to provide 15% open
space after it had been previously approved and some of the first neighborhoods were under
construction.
3
Zone 8 – The boundaries of this LFMZ included the Agua Hedionda Lagoon wetlands, the Kelly Ranch
Master Plan, and the future Veterans Memorial Park. Again, since there was a recently approved
Master on the Kelly Ranch the City did not require the LFMP to provide 15% open space. However,
when Veteran’s Memorial park is developed, I believe that this Zone will provide more than 15% open
space.
Zone 9 – This zone included Lake Shore Gardens Mobile Home Park, the future Ralph’s shopping center
and the approved Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan. Again, this LFMZ was not required to
provide 15% open space because it had a recently approved Master Plan and was starting to develop.
Zone 10 – The boundaries of this Zone correspond with the boundaries of the undeveloped portion of
the La Costa Master Plan and included the northern extension of the La Costa Golf Course. I do not
know why this LFMP was exempted from the 15% open space requirement. However, when the LFMZ
was prepared for this Zone, it is likely that the 15% was provided.
Zones 11 & 12 – All of the land in Zone 12 and most of the land in Zone 11 consisted of the undeveloped
portions of the La Costa Master Plan and these Zones were required to provide the 15% open space.
Zone 13 – This Zone includes the SDG&E properties on the south side of the Lagoon and the area of the
Carlsbad Ranch/LEGOLAND Specific Plan. This Zone was required to provide the 15% open space.
Zone 14 – The boundaries of this zone include the Robertson Ranch Master Plan and the open space
area around Calavera Lake. This area was totally undeveloped in the 1980’s and the future Robertson
Ranch Master Plan along with earlier open space dedications ensured that this zone provided the 15%
Open Space requirement.
Zone 15 – Zone 15 includes the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park and a number of undeveloped
parcels between Zone 15 and the non-residential development in Zone 5. This is the last large
undeveloped portion of Carlsbad. There is an approved Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 15
which shows how the 15% open space requirement will be complied with. If any future changes are
made to the densities on parcels within Zone 15 it will require an amendment to the existing LFMP.
Zone 16 – This Zone consists of the non-residential Palomar Oaks office/Industrial Park. Since there was
no residential development in this zone it was exempted from complying with the 15% open space
requirement.
Zone 17 – The boundaries of this zone correspond with the boundaries of the Bressi Ranch, which later
became the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The Local Facilities Management Plan that allowed for the
development of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan provided for the 15% open space requirement.
Zone 18 – The boundaries of this zone included the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and the Carlsbad
Raceway properties to the north of Palomar Airport Road. The LFMP for this Zone complied with the
15% open space requirement.
Zone 19 – The boundaries of this zone correspond with the boundaries of the Aviara Master Plan. The
LFMP for this zone met the 15% open space requirement.
4
Zones 20 &21- The boundaries of these zones were determined by the creation of the zones that have
previously been discussed. Both zones had multiple ownerships which made it more challenging the
complete the LFMPs and ensure the 15% open space requirement was met.
Zone 22 – The boundaries of this zone were formed by the boundaries of Zones 3, 4 & 9. The area
within this zone consists of the State Park, non-residential development along Avenida Encinas and the
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. The LFMP for the development of this zone complied with the 15%
open space requirement.
Zone 23 – Again the boundaries of this zone were formed by the boundaries of other zones. This is one
of the smaller Zones and includes the large retirement community and some commercial development
and complies with the 15% open space requirement.
Zone 24 - This small zone is occupied by the Evans Point development, a small mobile home project and
a recent single-family development along El Camino Real. The LFMP for this zone complied with the
15% open space requirement.
Zone 25 – The boundaries of this zone include the Quarry Creek Master Plan as well as a large parcel to
the west of the Master Plan that has been purchased for habitat preservation. This area is one of the
most recent developments in Carlsbad and the LFMP complied with the 15% OS requirement.
LOCAL FACILITES MANAGEMENT PLAN (LFMP)
After the boundaries were created for the 25 Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZs) Local Facilities
Management Plans (LFMPs) had to be prepared for each zone to show how future development in each
zone would contribute to the provision of the public facilities shown in the overall Public Facilities Plan
for the City of Carlsbad. Since Zones 1-6 were basically built out at that time City staff prepared the
LFMPs for those zones. Developers and property owners in the remaining 19 zones were required to
prepare the LFMPs for future development in those zones.
CONCLUSION
Hopefully this memo provides the information the Committee was requesting at our last meeting. I
believe that the information provided is accurate and will eliminate some of the confusion. I have done
my best to accurately remember events that occurred nearly 40 years ago.
The Committee needs to remember that the 15% Open Space requirement was a Local Facilities
Management Zone requirement, not an individual project requirement. Although the 40% open space
figure is sometimes mentioned by politicians and often mentioned by City critics it was never legally a
part of the City’s Growth Management Program.
The City’s Growth Management Plan is not perfect and few planning documents are. However, I believe
it has provided Carlsbad with the best public facilities for a City its size in San Diego County. All I know is
whenever I am travelling, and I tell people I live in Carlsbad I often hear how lucky I am to live there and
how they wish they could afford to live in Carlsbad. The Growth Management Plan along with the
foresight of the previous City Council members has helped to make this happen.
Attachments
City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZ)
LEGEND
8 = Outside CFO #1
Zone 1 -No fff Zone 14 • No FN
Zone 2 • No fff Zone 15 -No Fee
Legend
.rl7 LFMZ
L..,:j BOUNDARY
16
Zone 3 • No l'ff Zone 16 • $0.40/Sql"t
Zone 4 • No fff Zone 17 • $0.40/SqFt (New Construction) ll,lil,l~~lil"'O.
Zone 5 -$0,40/SqFt (New Construction) Zone 16 -$0.40/SqFt (New Construction)
Zone 6 -$310/Unlt Zone 19 • No FN
Zone 7 • No Fee Zone 20 • No FN
Zone I • No fH Zone 21 • No FN
Zonel • Nofff Zone22-NoFN
Zone 10 • No fN Zone 23 • No FN
Zone 11 • No Fee Zone 24 • No Fee
Zone 12 • No FN Zone 25 • No FN
Zone 13 °$0.40/SqFt J:lcargis2\pro<1Jas\planlllnQlr197 .0811.FMZ.ffll<d
48
Pacific
Ocean
--Highway
== Major Street
=c==c:c•=••= Planned Street
--Railroad
{'cicyof
Carlsbad
Local Facility
Manage'1~nt Zones
.CATEGORY I: URBANIZED
b3CATE
0
00RY II: URBANIZINO
Ill CATEGORY Ill: FUTURE URBANIZINQ
MAY 1986
DEVELOPMENT STATUS MAP
• Urbanized (developed)
• Urbanizing
...
(approved development/master plan)
• Future Urbanizing
(little or no development)
■cATE_OOAY I: URBANIZED
§cATEOORY II: URBANIZING
lfd CATEGORY Ill: FUTURI! URBANIZING
MAY 1986
DEVELOPMENT STATUS MAP
• Urbanized (developed)
• Urbanizing ..
(approved development/master plan)
• Future Urbanizing
(little or no development)
ATTACHMENT 2
CARLSBAD OPEN SPACE BY LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE
LOCAL FACILITY
MANAGEMENT ZONE #
IS ZONE EXEMPT FROM OPEN
SPACE STANDARD AND WHY?1
OPEN SPACE2 IS WHAT %
OF TOTAL ACRES IN ZONE?
% OF CITYWIDE
OPEN SPACE
1 Yes – Urbanized 21.1% 2.9%
2 Yes – Urbanized 15.8% .5%
3 Yes – Urbanized 9.4% .2%
4 Yes – Urbanized 20.2% .4%
5 Yes – Urbanized 24.6% 2.4%
6 Yes – Urbanized 20.4% 2.1%
7 Yes – Urbanizing 42.4% 1.4%
8 Yes – Urbanizing 80.1% 2.4%
9 Yes – Urbanizing 44.1% .8%
10 Yes – Urbanizing 60.5% 1.9%
11 No – Future Urbanizing 48.5% 4.4%
12 No – Future Urbanizing 20.8% .6%
13 No – Future Urbanizing 47.0% 1.4%
14 No – Future Urbanizing 68.3% 2.3%
15 No – Future Urbanizing 55.0% 3.4%
16 Yes – Not residential 53.1% .9%
17 No – Future Urbanizing 38.2% .9%
18 No – Future Urbanizing 38.3% 1.4%
19 No – Future Urbanizing 62.9% 4.1%
20 No – Future Urbanizing 32.1% 1%
21 No – Future Urbanizing 44.3% .5%
22 No – Future Urbanizing 17.2% .3%
23 No – Future Urbanizing 64.8% .7%
24 No – Future Urbanizing 41.0% .3%
25 No – Future Urbanizing 77.4% .9%
38%
OF TOTAL
CITY ACRES
1 See Jan. 24, 2023, memo from Mike Howes for more information
2 Includes all four General Plan categories of open space (1. Natural resource protection; 2. Managed production of
resources; 3. Outdoor recreation; and 4. Aesthetic, cultural and educational)
OCEANSIDE
SAN MARCO
S
}}78
MCCLELLAN-PALOMARAIRPORT
Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Buena VistaLagoon
CalaveraLake
MaerkleReservoir
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
PacificOcean
§¨¦5
·|}þ78
Batiquitos Lagoon
PALOMARAIRPORTRD
CANNONRD
POINSETTIALN
LACOSTAAV
C
ARL
S
BA
D
B
L
BATIQUITOS DR
ELCAMINOREAL
CAMIN O V IDAROBL E
C
A
DENCIAST
CHESTN
U
T
A
V
RANCHO SANTAFE
R
D
HILLSID
E
D
R
TAMARACK AV
AV
I
A
R
A
P
Y
CA
LLEACERVO
ALGA RD
MEL
R
O
S
E
D
R
ELFUERTEST
ALICANTERD
M ARRONRD
CA
MIN
O
JUNIPERO
FA
R
A
D
AYAV
CALLEBARCELONA
A
V
E
N
ID
A
ENCINAS
PASEO
D
E
L
N
O
RTE
C A R L S B A D VIL L A G E D R
OLIVENHAINRD
C O LLEG E B L
Future Open Spa ce a n d V isitor Services*
Open Space Categories:
1 - Preserva tion of N a tura l Resources
2 - Ma n a ged Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recrea tion (Progra m m ed\Un progra m m ed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultura l a n d Educa tion a l Purposes
La goon s
City Lim its
Highwa y
Ma jor Street
Pla n n ed Street
Ra ilroa d
[0 3,000 Feet
PLEASE N OTE: Open spa ce a rea s on this m a p a re derived from the Sa n Diego Coun ty a ssessor pa rcelm a p from Sa n GIS.org, which is the b est m a ppin g b a se curren tly a va ila b le for a city-wide perspective.However, the pa rcel lin es a n d the open spa ce a rea s within them m ust b e con sidered a s a pproxim a tion son ly, a n d a re n ot to b e used to esta b lish defin itive lin es of own ership or la n d sta tus.
THIS MAP/DATA IS PROV IDED W ITHOUT W ARRAN TY OF AN Y KIN D, EITHER EX PRESS ORIMPLIED, IN CLUDIN G BUT N OT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED W ARRAN TIES OF MERCHAN TABILITYAN D FITN ESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
GIS pa rcel da ta is derived from Sa n GIS/SAN DAG down loa da b le da ta - www.sa n gis.org.Copyright Sa n GIS 2019.\\sha res\GIS_ App\cb gis\products\pla n n in g\Sta n da rdMa p\Open Spa ce11x17.m xd
Open Space MapUpdated February 2021
Future open spa ce a rea is n ot coun ted in the open spa ce a crea geta b le on this m a p. For m ore in form a tion , see Gen era l Pla n La n d Usea n d Com m un ity Design Elem en t, ‘Specia l Pla n n in g Con sidera tion s:Ca rlsb a d Bouleva rd/Agua Hedion da Cen ter.’
*
Acreage % of OS % of City*
7387.9 77.7% 29.5%
328.8 3.5% 1.3%
1185.8 12.5% 4.7%
602.1 6.3% 2.4%Total 9504.6 38.0%
~ ----g
r-------, : i L_ _____ _
=
{'city of
Carlsbad
OCEANSIDE
SAN MARC
O
S
ENCINITAS
}}78
MCCLELLAN-PALOMARAIRPORT
Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Buena VistaLagoon
CalaveraLake
MaerkleReservoir
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
PacificOcean
!"^
?¸
Batiquitos Lagoon
6
25
1 2 7
14
15
5
16
17 1810
1112
8 24
133
2022
9 19
4 21
23
PALOMARAIRPORT RD
CANNONRD
P OI NSETTIALNPOINSETTIA LN
LACOSTAAV
C
A
R
L
S
B
AD
B
L
ELCAMINOREAL
C
A
MIN O V IDARO BLE
R A N CHO S A N T A FERD
TAMARACK AV
AVIARA
P
Y
M
E
L
R
O
SE
DR
MARRONRD
ALGA RD
AVEN
I
D
A
E
NCINAS
PASE
O
D
E
L
NORTE
C A R L S B A D V I L L A G E D R
OLIVENHAINRD
C O LLEG E B L
CARLSBAD
BL
Local FacilityManagement Zones
Highway
Major Street
Planned Street
Railroad
Lagoon J:\cbgis\products\planning\StandardMap\LFMZ_11x17.mxd
0 3,000Feet[
---========
C Cityof
Carlsbad
BUENAVISTALAGOON
AGUAHEDIONDALAGOON
ZONE 25
ZONE 1
ZONE 2 ZONE 7
ZONE 14
ZONE 8
ZONE 13ZONE 3
JEFFERSO
N
S
T C A RLSB A D VILL A G E DR
CANNON RD
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
M A R R O N R D
L A G UNA DR
PASEO
D
E
L
NOR
T
E
CHESTNUT A V
TAMARA
C
K
A
V
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
F
A
RADAYAV
M
O
N
R
O
E
S
T
V
ALLEY
ST
CA
R
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
DR A
R
M
ADADR
P
A
RK
DR
K
E
LLY
DR
A
V
E
NI
D
AEN
C
IN
A
S
BUENAVISTALAGOON
AGUAHEDIONDALAGOON
L
O
O
O
OS
OS
P
P
P
P
P
R-15
R-23
R-8
P
CF
P
L/CF
VC
OS
R-15
R-4 R-23
V-B VC
R-8
PI
R-8
R-8
V-B
R-4
LR
R-15
R-8
PI
R-8
R-4
R-15
R-23
R
OS
OS
OS
OS
P
R-4
R-8
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-4
R-4
OS
OS
V-B
R-4
R-4
OS
R-4R-4
R-4
OS
OS
R-15
VC
R-15
P
OS
VC/OS
GC
TC
R-23R-8
R-4
R-8
R-4
R-4
OS
V-B
R-4
OS
R-4
OS
OS
OS
R-4
CF
R-23
R-15
R-4
P
R-4
R-4R-15
OS CF
OS
OS
ZONE 25
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 7
ZONE 14
ZONE 8
ZONE 13ZONE 3
JEF
F
E
RSO N S T
C A RLSBADVILLAGEDR
CANNON RD
MARRON R D
L A G U NA DR
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
BL
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
REAL
CHESTNUT A V
TAMARA
C
K
A
V
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
F
ARADAY
AV
M
O
N
R
O
E
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
S
T
CARC
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R A
RMADADR
PARK DR
K
E
L
LY
DR
P
A
SEO
DE
L
N
ORTE
A
V
E
NID
A
E
NCIN
A
S
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 1
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
1 540.2 6.8 133.2 35.6 715.8 3,395.5 21.10%
~ \~~-1 .:-~
,;"'-
-•
':,
..
-----------PZi ----= ------
ZONE 25
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 7
ZONE 14
CHESTNUT A V
V
A
L
L
E
Y
S
T
M A R R O N RD
PAR
K
D
R
TA M ARACKAV
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C A R L S BA D V IL L A G E D R
O
OS
P
R-8
CF
P
CF L/CF
L
R
R-15
R-8
R-4
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-4
OS
OS
OS
P
R-4
R-4
OS
R-4
R-4
OS
R-4
R-4
R-4
OS
R-23
R-8
R-4 OS
CF
R-23
R-15OS
CF
R-4
OS
OS
R-8
ZONE 25
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 7
ZONE 14
PAR
K
D
R
TA M ARACKAV
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
D
R
M A RRON R D
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
TAMARACK A V
CHESTNUT AV
V
A
L
L
E
Y
S
T
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 2
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
2 91.9 0.0 9.5 25.8 127.2 805.4 15.80%
------....
• I •
---------PZi --= ------
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
ZONE 1
ZONE 5
ZONE 8
ZONE 13
ZONE 3
ZONE 22
ZONE 4
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
PA
S
E
O
D
E
L
NORTE
CANNON RD
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
PARK DR
C
A
R
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R
A
V
E
NID
A
E
N
CIN
A
S
LEGOL
A
N
D
D
R
A
R
M
A
D
A
D
R
AGUAHEDIONDALAGOON
R-15
VC
VC
VC
TC
R
PI
R-4
R-23
R
R
R-4 R-8
OS
VC
GC
R-8
OS
O
OS
VC
OS
OS
PI
PI
P
OS
P
OS
VC/OS
TC
PI/O
R-15
TC
OS
R-4
OS
VC
ZONE 1
ZONE 5
ZONE 8
ZONE 13
ZONE 3
ZONE 22
ZONE 4
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CANNON RD
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
PASEO
DEL
N
O
R
T
E
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
E
N
CIN
A
S
PARK DR
C
A
R
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R
LEGOLA
N
D
D
R
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
A
R
M
A
D
A
D
R
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 3
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
3 55.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 59.0 625.4 9.40%
-----------PZi ----= ------
ZONE 5
ZONE 3
ZONE 20
ZONE 22
ZONE 9
ZONE 19
ZONE 4
P
A
S
E
O
D
E
L
N
O
RTE
P O I N S E TTIALN
B
A
T
IQ
U
I
T
O
S
D
R
A
VIARA
P
Y
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
E
N
C
I
N
A
S
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
L
P
P
R-1.5
R-23
VC
R-23
R
GC
R-8
R-8
R-4
R-4
VC
R-4
R-4OS
R-23
R-8
OS
OS
OS
OS
R-8
VC
R-8
O
GCOS
VC
R-8
OS
R-15
P
R-15
OS
TC
GC
PI/O
OS
ZONE 5
ZONE 3
ZONE 20
ZONE 22
ZONE 9
ZONE 19
ZONE 4
P
A
S
E
O
D
E
L
N
O
R
TE
P O I N S E T TIA LN
B
A
TI
Q
U
I
T
O
S
D
R
A
VIARA
P
Y
A
V
E
N
ID
A
E
N
CINAS
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 4
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
4 32.9 0.0 25.3 44.6 102.8 507.8 20.20%
----------PZi ----= ------
MAERKLE RESERVOIR
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
LAKE CALAVERA
ZONE 6
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 7
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 16
ZONE 17
ZONE 10
ZONE 8
ZONE 24
ZONE 13
ZONE 20
ZONE 22
ZONE 9
ZONE 19
ZONE 4 ZONE 21
PALOMA R AIR P O R T R D
PASEO DELN
O
R
T
E
PALM
E
R
W
Y
C
OLLE
G
E
B
L
P O I N S E T T I A L N
P OINS E T T I A L N
BATIQ
U
IT
O
SDR
ELCAMINOREAL
TAMARACKAV
A
V
I
A
R
A
P
Y
ALGAR D
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
A
LICA
N
TERD
MELROS
E
D
R
FARADAY AV
A
V
E
NIDAEN
C
I
N
AS
E
L
FUERTE
ST
C
A
R
LSBA D V I L L A G E DR
SALKAV
PARK DR
EL F UERTEST
K
E
LLYDR
COLLEGE BL
CANNON R D
A
R
M
A
DADR
MAERKLE RESERVOIR
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
CF
CF
L
O
P
P
P
P
R-15
R-2 3
O
R-8
R-8
VC
P
R-4
GC
R-30 R-1 5L/CF
R-8
R
R-8
R-23
L
R-4
R-8P
R-15
R-4
L
R-8R-4
R-4
R-8 R-4
R-8
G C
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
VC
R-15
R-4
R-4
R-4 R-1 5
R-4
R-30
R-4
R-8
R-4
V C
R-4
R-8
R-4 R-1.5
R-1.5
PIPI
OS
O S
OS
P
R-4
OS
R-8
O S
OS
P
PI
R-23
R-8
R-15
R-4
OS
OS
OSOS
PI
R-4
R-8
R-4
OS OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
R-8 OS
R-23
OS
O S
R-4
OS
R-8
VC
R-4
GC
R-8
O
OS R-15
PI
R-8
PI PI
VC
OS
O
PI/O
POS
OS
PI
P
GC
R-15
CF
OS
OS
TC
OS
R-23R-8
R-4
P
OS
PI
PI/O
R-4
R-8
PIOS
OS
PI
PI O
R-4
OS
R-4
OS
R-15/L
R-4OS
R-4 OS
P
R-1.5
OS
OS
R-4R-15
OS
OS
OS
R-23
R-4
OS
ZONE 6
ZONE 1
ZONE 2 ZONE 7
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 16
ZONE 17
ZONE 10
ZONE 8
ZONE 24
ZONE 13
ZONE 20
ZONE 22
ZONE 19
ZONE 4 ZONE 21
PASEOD
E
L
N
O
RTE
PALM
E
R
W
Y
P O I N S E T TI A L N
P O I NSETTIA LN
P A L O M A R AIR P ORT RD
B
ATIQUITOS DR
ELCAMINOREAL
ALGARD
T A MARACKAV
A
V
IA
R
A
P
Y
ELFUE R TEST
ALICA
NTE
R
D
FARADAY AV
AVE NIDAE
N
CINAS
E
L
FUERTE
ST
C
O
LL
E
G
E
B
L
C
A
RLSB A D V I L L A G E DR
SALK AV
PARK DR
K
E
L
LY
DR
COLLEGE BLCANNONRD
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
A
R
M
A
D
A
DR
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 5
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
5 484.8 0.0 110.9 4.7 600.4 2,440.0 24.61%
----------PZi ----= -------
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
ZONE 6
ZONE 5 ZONE 17
ZONE 18
ZONE 10
ZONE 11
ZONE 12
ZONE 19
ZONE 21
ZONE 23
P OI N S E T T I A L N
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
L A C O S T A A V
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
D
R
AVIARA PY
ALGA RD
C A L L E B A R C E L O N A
ALICA
N
T
E
RD
RANC H O S A N TA F E R D
ELFUERT
E
S
T
CAMINODE L O S COCHES
CF
L
L
O
O
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R-15
R-15
R-15
R-23 R-23
R-23
R-8VC
P
OS
R-4
L
PR-4
R-8
R-8GC
R-8
R-15
R-4
R-8
R-8
R
OS
R-1.5
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-4 R-1.5
R-1.5
R-4
R-4
OS
R-4
R-4 R-4
R-4
OS
OS
R-4
R-8
OS
OSOSOS
R-15
R-23
R-4
P
R-15
R-4
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
R-15
R-4
OS
R-8
R-4
R-8
GC
OS
OS
R-15
R-4
R-15
R-8
OS
R-4
R-8
R-4
OS
R-8
CF
OS
PPI
R-23
R-4
L
R-15
R-4
OS
R-4
OS
ZONE 6
ZONE 5 ZONE 17
ZONE 18
ZONE 10
ZONE 11
ZONE 12
ZONE 21
ZONE 23
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
POINSETT
I
A
L
N
LA CO S TA A V
AVIARA PY
ALGA RD
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
D
R
C ALLE BA RCE L O N A
A
LIC
A
N
TERD
ELFUERTEST
CAMINODE L O S C OCHES
RANCH O S A N TA F E R D
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 6
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
6 231.9 0.0 280.4 18.9 531.2 2,606.9 20.38%
\ -----f ----PZi --= ------
LAK E C A L A V E R A
ZONE 25
ZONE 2
ZONE 7
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 15
TAMARACKAV
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
D
R
C
OLLE
G
E
B
L
CANNO
N
R
D
LA K E C A L AVERA
CF
P
R-23
CF
P
R-30
R-8R-4
R-8 R-4
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-15
R-8P
R-4
OS
R-8
R-4
OS
R-4
R-4
R-23
R-4
R-4R-8
CF
R-23
R-15
OS
P
OS
OS
OS
CF
R-4
OS
R-8OS
ZONE 25
ZONE 2
ZONE 7
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 15
TAMARACKAV
C A R L S B A D V I L L A G E D R
CANNO
N
R
D
C
O
LLE
G
E
B
L
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 7
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
7 276.9 0.0 28.3 39.2 344.4 812.8 42.40%
-------.
---------PZi --= ------
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
ZONE 1
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 8
ZONE 24
ZONE 13
FARA
D
AYAV
TAMARA C K A V
C O L L E G E B L
EL CAMINOREAL
LEGOL
A
N
D
D
R
PARK DR
KELLY
D
R
A
R
M
A
D
A
D
R
CANNO N R D
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
P
R-15
R-15CF
L/CF
R-8
R-4 R-8
R-4
R-8
R
OSR-4
R-8
R-4
OS
R-23
OS
R-15
PI
VC
PI/O
OS
OS
PI
GC
OS
OS
PI
R-4R-15
OSR-23
ZONE 1
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 8
ZONE 24
ZONE 13
TAMARA C K A V
EL CAMINOREAL
FARADAYAV
A
R
M
A
D
A
D
R
LEGOL
A
N
D
D
R
PARK DR
KELLY
D
R
CANNON
RD
C O L L E G E B L
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 8
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
8 490.8 0.0 90.9 13.8 595.5 743.1 80.10%
---------PZi --= ------
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
ZONE 20
ZONE 22
ZONE 9 ZONE 19
ZONE 4
POINSETTIA LN
LA COSTA AV
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
B
A
T
I
Q
U
IT
O
SDR
AV
E
N
I
D
A
E
N
C
I
N
A
S
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
L
P
R-23
GC
VC
OSR-8
R-8
R-8
R-15
VC
R-4
R-4
OS
R-8
R-8
OS
OS
VC
OS
OSTC
TC
OS
ZONE 20
ZONE 22
ZONE 9
ZONE 19
ZONE 4
B
A
T
I
Q
U
IT
O
S
D
R
P O I N S E T T I A L N
LA COSTA AV
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
E
N
C
I
N
A
S
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 9
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
9 195.1 0.0 3.9 8.7 207.7 471.6 44.10%
I -I --' -' -' -\ -.. --PZi ----= --------
ZONE 6
ZONE 5
ZONE 17
ZONE 10
ZONE 21
POINSE
T
T
I
A
L
N
E
L
C
A
M
IN
O
R
E
A
L
AVIA RA PY
ALGARD
A
L
I
C
A
N
T
E
RD
CF
O
O
P
R-23
R-4
R-8
R-15
R-4
L GC
R-8
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-4
R-1.5
R-15
R-15
R-4
OS
OS
OS
R-4
OS
OS
R-8
OS PPI
OS
R-4
OS
ZONE 6
ZONE 5
ZONE 17
ZONE 10
ZONE 21
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
AVIARA PY
ALGARD
ALICANTE
R
D
POINSE
T
T
I
A
L
N
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 10
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
10 246.8 0.0 114.2 103.2 464.2 766.8 60.50%
-------
---------PZi --= ----
ZONE 6
ZONE 10
ZONE 11
ZONE 12
L A C O S T A A V RANCHOSANTA
FE
RD
ALGA RD
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
D
R
ALICANTERD
ELFUERTEST
R
A
N
C
H
O
S
A
N
TA
FE
RD
CAMINODE L O SCOCHES
CALLEBARCELONA
OLIVENHAIN RD
CA
MIN
O
J
UNIPE
R
O
CF
L
P
P P
P
P
P
P
R-1.5
R-15
R-23
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-15
R-8R-15
R-4
R-8
R-8
R-1.5
R-4
R-4
R-1.5
R-1.5
R-4
R-4
OS
OS
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-4
OS
R-4
R-8
OS
OS
OSOS
R-4
R-15
P
OS
OS
R-15
R-8
R-4
R-8
R-8
OS
OS
OS
R-15
R-4
R-15
R-8
OS
R-4
R-4
OS
OS
R-4
P
OS
R-4
R-8
OS
R-23
R-4
L
R-15
R-4
OS
R-1.5
R-4
R-4
OS
ZONE 6
ZONE 10
ZONE 11
ZONE 12
ALICANTERD
LACOSTAAV
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
D
RALGA RD
RANCHOSANTAFE
RD
ALICANTE R D
ELFUERTEST
R
A
N
C
H
O
S
A
NTA
FE
RD
CAMINODELO S C OCHES
CALLEBARCELONA
OLIVENHAI N R D
C
A
M
INO
JU
NI
P
E
R
O
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 11
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
11 920.2 0.0 41.9 148.7 1,110.8 2,290.6 48.50%
---------, --PZi ----♦ = ------
,
ii11'
• • ..
~ .. ~-----
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
ZONE 6
ZONE 11
ZONE 12ZONE 23
E
L
C
A
M
IN
O
R
E
A
L
RANCHO SANTAFERDCALLEBARCELONA
LACOSTAAV
R
A
N
C
H
O
SA
N
TA
F
E
R
D
OLIV ENHAIN RD
L
P
P
P
P
P
R-15
R-15
R-23
VC
R-8
R-8
R
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-4
OS
OS
OS
R-4
R-8
OS
OS
R-15
R-15
OS
R-4
R-4
OS
P
R-15
R-23OS
ZONE 6
ZONE 11
ZONE 12ZONE 23
C A L L E B A R C E L O NA
LACOSTAAV
R
A
N
C
H
O
S
A
N
TA
FE
R
D
RANCHO SANTA FE RD
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
OLIVE N HAIN RD
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 12
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
12 95.3 0.0 16.5 25.9 137.7 660.9 20.80%
........
-----------PZi ----= ------
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
ZONE 1
ZONE 5
ZONE 8
ZONE 13ZONE 3
ZONE 20
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CANNON RD
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
FAR
A
D
A
Y
A
V
K
E
L
L
Y
D
R
C
A
R
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R
LEGO
L
A
N
D
D
R
PARK DR
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
P
A
S
E
O
D
E
L
N
O
RTE
A
R
M
A
D
A
D
R
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
E
N
C
I
N
A
S
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
P
R-15
VC
VC
VC
R
R-4
PI
R-4
R-23
R
R
OS
OS
R-4 R-4
R-8
OS
R-8
P
GC
O
OS
R-15
VC
O
OS
PI
PI
P
VC/OS
TC
R-15
TC
OS
OS
OS
ZONE 1
ZONE 5
ZONE 8
ZONE 13
ZONE 3
ZONE 20
ZONE 22 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CANNONRD
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
C
A
R
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
D
R
LEGO
L
A
N
D
D
R
PARK DR
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
P
A
S
E
O
D
E
L
N
O
R
T
E
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
E
N
C
I
N
A
S
A
R
M
A
D
A
D
R
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 13
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
13 113.7 232.4 0.0 0.0 346.1 736.9 47.00%
-----------PZi ----= ------
L A K E C A L A V E R A
ZONE 25
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 7
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 8 ZONE 24
ELCAMINOREAL
T A M ARACKAV
CA R L S B A D V I L L A G E D R
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
PARK
DR
KELLY
D
R
COLLEGEBL
C A N N O N R D
L A K E C A L A V E R A
CF
O
P
P
R-15
R-23
R-23
R-8
CF
P
R-30
R-15CF
L/CF
R-4R-8
R-4
R-8 R-4
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-15
R-8
R-4
R-4
R-8
P
R-4
R-4
PI
R-8
OS
R-23
R-4
R-4
OS
OS
R-15
GC
R-23
R-4
OS
R-4
R-8
OS
PIR-4
R-15/L
R-4
OS
OS
CF
R-23
R-15
P
R-1.5
OS
OS
R-4R-15
OS
CF
OS
OSR-8
ZONE 25
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 7
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 8 ZONE 24
ELCAMINOREAL
TAMARACKAV
C A R L S B A D V I L L A G E DR
COLLEGEBL
PA R K D R
COLLEGEBL
KELL
Y
D
R
C A N N O N R D
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 14
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
14 535.0 0.0 21.1 9.0 565.1 827.5 68.30%
I
---------PZi --= ----
.------.
I f --=------,
!
I
I
!
MAERKLE RESERVOIR
L A K E C A L A V E R A
ZONE 7 ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 16
ZONE 24
PAL
M
E
R
W
Y
COLLEGEBL
ELFU
E
R
T
E
S
T
ELCAMINOREAL
FARADAY AV
COLLEGE
B
L
SALKAV
CAN N O N R D MAERKLE RESERVOIR
L A K E C A L A V E R A
CF
P
R-15
R-23
R-23
O
R-8
R-30
R-15
R-4
R-8
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-15
R-8
R-4
PI
R-8
OS
R-4
P
R-8
R-23
OS
OS
PI OS
OS
PI
R-4
R-8
OS
OS
PI
PI
PI
O
R-4
OS
R-15/L
R-4
OS
OS
P
R-1.5
OS
OS
OS
ZONE 7
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 16
ZONE 24 ELCAMINOREAL
PAL
M
E
R
W
Y
C A N N O N R D
FARADAYAV
COLLEGEBL
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
BL
SALKAV
ELFUE
R
T
E
S
T
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 15
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
15 716.6 89.5 34.2 5.1 845.4 1,536.3 55.00%
I
,, , ' ' , \ , \
I I
I
\
I I ,
---------PZi --= ------
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 16
E
L
F
U
E
R
T
E
S
T
FARADAY AV
O
PI
PI
OS
OS
PI
OS
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 16
EL
F
U
E
R
T
E
S
T
FARADAY AV
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 16
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
16 219.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 219.7 413.7 53.10%
-----------PZi ----= ------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' ,
' I
' I
ZONE 6
ZONE 5
ZONE 16
ZONE 17
ZONE 18ZONE 10
EL
F
U
E
R
T
E
S
T
POINSETT
I
A
L
N
PALOMARAIRPORTRD
ALICANTE
RD
MELROSEDR
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CF
CF
O
OS
P
GC
L
R-15
R-8
R-4
R-4
PI
PI
PI
PI
R-4
OS
OS
OS
OSOSR-15
OS
R-23
CF
OS
P
R-23
R-4
OS
ZONE 6
ZONE 5
ZONE 16
ZONE 17
ZONE 18
ZONE 10
PALOMARAIRPORTRD
ELCAMINO
REAL
ALICANTERD
EL
F
U
E
R
T
E
S
T
M
ELROSE
DR
POINSET
T
I
A
L
N
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 17
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
17 187.7 0.0 5.6 31.2 224.5 588.4 38.20%
---------PZi --= ------
ZONE 6
ZONE 5
ZONE 17
ZONE 18
POINSETTIA
L
N
MELROSEDR
PALOMARAIRPORTRD
ELFUERTEST
A L G A R D
CF
R-15
L
R-15
PI
P
R-4
R-4
PI
PI
R-23
R-4
R-4
OS
OS
OS
R-4
R-8
OS
OS
R-23 R-8
R-8
R-8
CF
OS
P
R-4
OS
ZONE 6
ZONE 5
ZONE 17
ZONE 18
MELROSEDR
PALOMARAIRPORTRD
EL
F
U
E
R
T
E
S
T
POINSETTI
A
L
N
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 18
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
18 299.9 0.0 14.0 30.8 344.7 899.9 38.30%
I
I ---------PZi --= ------
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
ZONE 6
ZONE 5
ZONE 20
ZONE 9
ZONE 19
ZONE 4
ZONE 21
P O I N S E T TIA L N
LA COSTA AV
P O IN S E T T I A L N
B
A
TI
Q
U
IT
O
S
D
R
ELCAMINOREAL
AVIA
R
A
P
Y
E
L
CA
M
IN
O
REAL
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
L
O
P
P
R-15
R-23
R-4
VC
P
R-8
R-8
R-23
R-15
L
R-8
OS
R-8
VC
R-4
R-4
R-4
OS
R-8
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-15
R-4
OS
PI
R-4
R-4
OS
OS
OS
OS
OSOS
OS
OS
OS
PIR-8
OS
OSTC
OS
R-4
R-8
R-4
ZONE 6
ZONE 5
ZONE 20
ZONE 9
ZONE 19
ZONE 4
ZONE 21
P O IN S E T TIA LN
LA COSTA AV
P O I N S E T T I A L N
BATIQUITOS DR
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
AVIAR
A
P
Y
E
L
CAMINOREAL
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 19
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
19 794.5 0.0 200.9 18.7 1,014.1 1,611.6 62.90%
---------PZi --= ----
ZONE 5
ZONE 13
ZONE 20
ZONE 9
ZONE 19
ZONE 4
PA
S
E
O
D
E
L
N
O
R
T
E
PALOMARAIRPORTRD
A
V
I
A
R
A
P
YPOINSETTIALN
BATIQUITOS
DR
A
VENIDA ENCINAS
COLLEGE B L
L
P
R-1.5
R-8
R-8
R-8
VC
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-30
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-8
R-23
R-8
R-4
PI
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
R-8
R-8
R-8
VC
OS
O
P
OS
OS
TC
OS
OS
R-4
ZONE 5ZONE 13
ZONE 20
ZONE 9
ZONE 19
ZONE 4
P
A
S
E
O
D
E
L
N
O
RTE
P OIN S E T T I A L N
BA
T
I
Q
U
I
T
O
S
D
R
AVENIDAE
N
C
I
N
A
S
A
V
I
A
R
A
P
Y
PALOMARAIRPORTRD
COLLEGEBL
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 20
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ Preservation Managed Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
20 200.2 0.0 34.8 23.6 258.6 805.1 32.10%
---------PZi --= ------
ZONE 6
ZONE 5
ZONE 10
ZONE 19
ZONE 21 POINSETTIALN
POINSETTIALN
E
L
C
A
M
IN
O
R
E
A
L
O
R-23
R-4
P
R-23
R-15
R-4
L GC
R-4
R-8
R-8
R-15
OS
PI
OS
OS
R-8
R-4
ZONE 6
ZONE 5
ZONE 10
ZONE 21
P O IN S E T TIA L N
E
L
C
A
M
IN
O
R
E
A
L
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 21
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ PreservationManaged Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
21 108.5 0.0 5.5 4.4 118.4 267.4 44.30%
I
---------PZi --= -----I •
ZONE 5
ZONE 13
ZONE 3
ZONE 20
ZONE 22
ZONE 9
ZONE 4
PA
S
E
O
D
E
L
N
O
R
T
E
PALOMAR AIRPORTRD
B
ATIQUITOS
DR
P O I N S E T T I A L N
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
E
N
C
I
N
A
S
ARMADADR
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
L
P
P
R-23
VC
R-23
R
PI
GC
R-8
R-8
R-15
R
VC
R-4
OS
R-8
R-8
R-8
OS
R-8
VC
OS
VC
GC
R-8
O
VC
O
OS
PI
PI
P
R-8
R-15
OS
TC
GC
PI/O
R-15
TC
OS
OS
OS
OS
ZONE 5
ZONE 13
ZONE 3
ZONE 20
ZONE 22
ZONE 9
ZONE 4
PASEODELN
O
R
T
E
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
POINSETTIA LN
BATIQ
U
I
T
O
S
D
R
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
E
N
C
I
N
A
S
ARMADA
D
R
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 22
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ PreservationManaged Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
22 69.2 0.0 1.5 3.5 74.2 431.0 17.20%
-----------PZi ----= ------
ZONE 6
ZONE 12
ZONE 19
ZONE 23
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CALLE BARCE LONA
LA COSTA AV
L
PR-15
OS
R-8
R
OS
R-4
R-8
R-4
OS
GC
ZONE 6
ZONE 12
ZONE 19
ZONE 23
E
L
C
A
M
IN
O
R
E
AL
CALLE BARCELONA
LA CO S TA AV
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 23
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ PreservationManaged Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
23 184.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 184.4 284.4 64.80%
I
• I
I ~ ~ \ I
• I
• I
I
\ ~ I
• I
-------------PZi --= -----
\
' r l I ....... ......._.., _________ , -
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 8
ZONE 24
FA
R
A
D
AY
AV
CANNONRD
ELCAMINOREAL
COLLE
GE
BL
SALK AV
R-8
R-4
R-23
R-4
R-8
OS
PI
OS
PI
OS
R-4
R-15/L
OS
OS
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 5
ZONE 8
ZONE 24
ELCAMINOREAL
FARADAY
AV
CANNONRD
COLLEGE
BL
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 24
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ PreservationManaged Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
24 65.3 0.0 10.0 6.6 81.9 199.6 41.00%
---------PZi --= ------
ZONE 25
ZONE 2
ZONE 7C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
D
R
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
T
A
M
A
R
A
C
K
AV CF
P
R-4
R-8
R-8
R-4
OS
OS
R-4OS
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-4 OS
CF
R-23
R-15OS
CF
ZONE 25
ZONE 2 ZONE 7
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
D
R
Open Space Map (FY2021-2022)
Open Space General PlanLFMZ 25
General Plan Land UseR-1.5, Residential 0-1.5 du/ac
R-4, Residential 0-4 du/acR-8, Residential 4-8 du/acR-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac
R-15/L, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping CenterR-15/VC, Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor CommercialR-15/O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office
R-23, Residential 15-23 du/acR-30, Residential 23-30 du/acV-B, Village-Barrio
L, Local Shopping CenterL/CF, Local Shopping Center/Community FacilitiesGC, General Commercial
VC, Visitor CommercialVC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open SpaceR, Regional Commercial
PI, Planned Industrial
PI/O, Planned Industrial/OfficeO, OfficeP, Public
CF, Community FacilitiesOS, Open SpaceTC, Transportation Corridor
Open Space Categories:1 - Preservation of Natural Resources
2 - Managed Production of Resources
3 - Outdoor Recreation (Programmed\Unprogrammed)
4 - Aesthetic Cultural and Educational Purposes
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0032410_23\OpenSpace - LFMZ Map 11x17 LFMZ_.mxd
LFMZ PreservationManaged Outdoor Aesthetic
Total LFMZ Open Space
Total LFMZ Acreage
Open Space Percentage
25 232.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 232.1 299.9 77.40%
... ...__
----,,,. -,,,. -,,,.
---------PZi --= -----
,,,. ,,,. ,,,. ,,,.
1
Open Space Standards Benchmarking
Jurisdiction Document Topic
San Diego County
Carlsbad General Plan
(2015)
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element describes four categories of open space: 1) natural resources, 2)
managed production of resources, 3) outdoor recreation, and 4) aesthetic, cultural and educational.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan
Policies require compliance with the Growth Management open space standard and guide protection of natural
resources, the provision of parks, trails and high-quality beaches, and support for the continuation of agriculture.
Today, 38% of the city’s total land area is designated as open space.
Growth
management
Standard
15% in the Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land
must be set aside for permanent open space and must be available concurrent with development.
Proposition C (2001) provides voter approved funding for park and open space acquisition.
Zoning
Regulations
Open Space Zone and Cannon Road Agricultural/Open Space Zone specify regulations to limit development on land
designated as open space by the General Plan. Planned Community Zone requires 15% of the total area of a master
plan to be open space. Various other development standards require open space, recreation areas and landscaped
buffers/setbacks within development projects. For example, residential planned development projects must provide
private recreation area (200 – 400 square feet per unit) and common recreation areas (150 – 200 square feet per
unit); also, residential zoning standards limit lot coverage to no more than 40% to 60%.
Habitat Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan guides the design, management, monitoring, and public use of the city’s natural
open space preserve system. About 78 percent of Carlsbad’s open space is natural resources. Carlsbad also
participates in the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program.
Other: Trails Master Plan – identifies where trails will be constructed; trails are open space.
Proposition C (2002) – authorized the City Council to spend more than $1 million to acquire open space and build
trails. As of 2022, the city has spent $4.2 million on open space and trails projects, including South Shore Agua
Hedionda Lagoon Trail Improvements, Arroyo Vista Trail Extension, Lake Calavera Trails, 6125 Paseo del Norte open
space purchase and Aura Circle open space purchase.
Percentage of city that is open space 38% of the city’s total land area is designated as open space (Carlsbad Open Space Map)
2
Jurisdiction Document Topic
Chula Vista General Plan
(2021)
Land Use Element describes an open space network (Chula Vista Greenbelt), a 28-mile open space system for
conservation and to help physically define the city. The Open Space designation is intended for lands to be
protected from urban development, including floodplains; canyon; mountain; and agricultural uses. Table
5-7 -General Plan Land Use in 2030 - identifies Parks and Recreation (978 acres), Open Space (7,306 acres) ,
Open Space Preserve (16,926 acres) and Open Space Active Recreation (375 acres) out of a total 58,700
acres.
Environmental Element describes four categories of open space.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-
services/planning/planning-digital-library/general-plan
Regulations Open space is required based on dwelling unit size in the R-3 (apartment residential) zone and Bayfront Specific Plan.
Open Space District is included in municipal code.
https://chulavista.municipal.codes/
Habitat Participates in the regional Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP); adopted a MSCP subarea plan in 2003.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7106/635653719615470000
Other Otay Ranch GDP states that "approximately 60% of Otay Ranch will be set aside as open space, including a park
system, a greenbelt system and an open space preserve." At full build out, the open space provisions are required to
be at least:
• 342 acres of local parks
• 1,172 acres of open space (excluding regional parks)
• 1,590 acres of regional parks
Percentage of city that is open space 43.6% of the city’s total land area is designated as open space (General Plan Land Use). Percentage (43.6%) includes
open space on county land that may not be incorporated.
3
Jurisdiction Document Topic
Encinitas General Plan
(2005)
Recreation Element policies generally support the acquisition and maintenance of land for open space and parks;
public access to those lands; maintenance of parks and open space
Goal 3 related to balancing commercial goals of Coastal Areas with open space goals.
Regulations 30.16.010 Residential Zones – Development Standards
Higher Density SF and MF residential must have a minimum of 10% private open space.
R-30 Overlay requires private and common open space.
30.32.010 Ecological Resource/Open Space/Parks Zone
Habitat Encinitas is a participant in the MHCP.
https://www.sandag.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/projects-and-programs/environment/regional-habitat-
conservation/habitat-management-draft-encinitas-subarea-plan-2001-06-01.pdf
Percentage of city that is open space Information not available.
Oceanside General Plan Currently going through a General Plan update process.
Specific open space reference in Land Use Element (Goal 2.6) but does not include development standard or metric.
Development Standards and standards for preservation of Open Space Lands are listed in Environmental Resource
Management Element.
The city includes more than 3,000 acres of farmland, and preserves open space within its principal watersheds (the
San Luis Rey River, Loma Alta Creek, and Buena Vista Lagoon). (2019 Economic Development Element)
Regulations Article 15: Open Space Districts does not include an open space standard.
Habitat Participates in the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program.
Percentage of city that is open space 25.3% of the total city acres is designated for open space (agriculture, parks, preserves) (Oceanside Subarea Plan of
the Natural Community Conservation Plan).
4
Jurisdiction Document Topic
San Diego City General Plan
(2008)
(Recreation
Element
amended in
2021)
Three use categories of parks and recreation: population-based, resource-based, and open space.
Resource-based parks are located at, or centered on, notable natural or man-made features (beaches, canyons,
habitat systems, lakes, historic sites, and cultural facilities). Open space lands are City-owned lands consisting of
canyons, mesas, and other natural landforms. Intended to preserve and protect native plants and animals, while
providing public access and enjoyment by the use of hiking, biking, and equestrian trails.
Land Use Element (2015) 28.6% of city comprised of Park, Open Space and Recreation land use designations.
Regulations Open Space Zone for open space designated land.
Lot coverage requirements
Residential: Private exterior open space of at least 60 square feet (SF) per dwelling unit (DU). May be in required
front yards.
Common open space required for more than 4 units. At least 300 square feet, or 25 SF per DU.
Habitat Adopted the Multiple Species Conservation Program in 1997 as a part of the regional Multi-Habitat Planning Area.
Continues to work on assembling the preserve.
Other Approved bond measure in 1978 for sale of bonds to purchase open space
Percentage of city that is open space 28.6% of city comprised of Park, Open Space and Recreation land use designations.
5
Jurisdiction Document Topic
San Diego
County
General Plan
(2011)
Open space is defined as any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to open
space use. Policies are to identify and preserve an inter-connected preserve system. Regional preserves and open
space lands are a part of the Parks and Recreation system. The General Plan does not have standards for open
space. Includes policies to protect natural habitat and steep hillsides, and support agriculture preservation.
The unincorporated portion of San Diego County encompasses approximately 2.3 million acres, or 3,570 square
miles. A majority of the unincorporated County’s land, in excess of 90 percent, is either open space or undeveloped.
Four designations—Specific Plan Areas, Public and Semi‐Public Facilities, Open Space—Conservation, and Open
Space—Recreation—generally relate to areas where the County or some other agency controls land under County
jurisdiction to provide public facilities, such as schools, protect open space resources, or to serve recreational needs.
Open space preserves total 159,400 acres or 7 percent of the total land area in the unincorporated County.
Regulations Requires 100 to 800 square feet of usable open space per multi-family dwelling unit. Zoning Ordinance Summary
Planned Development Area Regulations (5800) are to insure “1) the preservation of land areas within the
unincorporated territory of San Diego County which possess unique characteristics and features of a geographical,
geological, topographical, environmental, agricultural, scenic or historical nature; and/or 2) to permit a more
creative and imaginative design for development of any area than is generally possible under conventional zoning
regulations which will result in more economical and efficient use of land while providing a higher level of amenities
associated with development in Village areas and greater preservation of open space in Rural areas.”
Habitat There are Multiple Species Conservation Plans (MSCP) for South County (approved), North County (in development)
and East County (in development). The County also has Resource Management Plans for Parks and Preserves.
Other Existing sources of funding for park acquisition and development include federal, state, and local funds, donations,
and through developer exactions. The Park Lands Dedication Ordinance provides funding for local park active
recreation. Existing sources of funding for open space land acquisition that will ultimately build out the MSCP
preserve include local, state and federal funds and donations. The Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program promotes the long term preservation of agriculture in the County of San Diego.
Percentage of county that is open
space
More than 67% is either open space or held by public agencies or tribal governments. Open space preserves total 7%
of the total land area in the unincorporated county.
6
Jurisdiction Document Topic
San Marcos General Plan
(2012)
Conservation and Open Space Element (2012)
“About 25 percent of the City is currently undeveloped and provides habitat for a range of vegetation communities.”
“The City contains 2,499 acres of dedicated open space, which is approximately 12 percent of the City’s acreage”
Policies promote access to parks and open space, provision of parkland, and ensures protection of natural resources
and dedicated open space.
Regulations Multifamily Open Space Standards - Private open space for individual DUs are required: 250 SF for ground floor unit,
and 50 SF for 2nd-Story unit. Common open space is also required equal to 30% of livable ground floor area of all
units. Common open space can be natural or improved and shall include at least three on-site recreational
amenities. (Municipal Code Table 20.215-4)
Planned Residential Development – Used where site planning flexibility is desired. Required open space shall
comprise at least forty percent (40%) of the total area of the planned development. 50% of the required open space
shall be suitably improved. 50% may be improved or left in its natural state. Floodway and drainage easement areas
as well as land occupied by recreational buildings and structures may be counted.
Mixed Use Zone open space requirements vary, from 5% to 20% of development depending on unit count, lot size,
etc.
Habitat The city, working with other federal, state, regional, and local agencies, has contributed to SANDAG’s North County
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program, and County of San Diego’s North County Multiple Species Conservation
Program in an effort to better protect these habitats and species.
Percentage of city that is open space About 25% of the city is currently undeveloped and provides natural habitat areas. The city has 2,499 acres of
dedicated open space, which is approximately 12% of the city’s acreage.
7
Jurisdiction Document Topic
Orange County
Irvine General Plan
(2015)
Identifies Conservation/Open Space category in Land Use Element. Does not include open space metric.
The Land Use Element Table A-2 provides land use acreage by planning area, and a citywide total acreage of 45,388.
It identifies: 709 acres of agriculture open space, 11,022 acres of preservation open space, 2,959 acres of recreation
open space, and 206 acres of water bodies. The Great Park (former Marine Corp Air Station El Toro) is identified
separately with 4,519 acres (however, another city web page states that the Great Park spans 1,300 acres). These
categories together total 19,415 acres or 42.8% of total city acreage. Without the Great Park, general plan
designated open space comprises 14,896 acres of 40,869 acres, or 36.4%.
Regulations Division 8 – Conservation and Open Space Phased Dedication Districts establishes a “phased dedication program” to
implement open space goals identified in the General Plan. Open space acreage requirements are listed by
“implementation district.” The designation of specific preservation areas and development opportunities are
reflected in the Conservation and Open Space Element and Land Use Element and identified by lettered “districts”
as described in Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Preservation areas are designated primarily for their biotic and
cultural resources and open space values. The amount of open space and development potential varies within each
district. Open space lands have been conveyed to the city in exchange for development rights.
Open Space Management and Conservation Plans (OSMCP) are required for each implementation district. To date,
approximately 5,200 acres of the 8,000+ originally envisioned in the Open Space Initiative, which focused on
undeveloped lands owned by the Irvine Company, have been transferred to the City by the Irvine Company.
https://library.municode.com/ca/irvine/codes/zoning/298553?nodeId=ZONING_ORDINANCE_DIV8COOPSPPHDEDI
Zoning development standards for multifamily development generally include: unlimited maximum site coverage,
30% minimum site landscaping, “2.3F:5% minimum open space area”, and various setback requirements.
Habitat The City has committed to protect and manage the Irvine Open Space Preserve consistent with the California
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1991.
Percentage of city that is open space With the Great Park (former Marine Corp Air Station El Toro) 42.8% of total city acreage is open space. Without the
Great Park, general plan designated open space comprises 36.4% of the city’s acreage.
8
Jurisdiction Document Topic
Laguna Niguel General Plan
(1992)
Open Space and Parks Element: Over one-third of Laguna Niguel is designated for Open Space use. Open Space is
categorized into three typologies ––Regional Open Space, Local Open Space (open space corridors, greenbelts,
hillsides, and landscaping), and Landscaped Corridors along scenic highways.
Regulations Implements standards set forth in open space and parks element of general plan.
Zoning regulations for Planned Residential and RM Multifamily require 25% minimum common open area (% of net
site area). Required common open area shall consist of passive landscaped and active recreation areas.
https://library.municode.com/ca/laguna_niguel/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PLZO_DIV1PL_ART2COZOC
O_SUBARTICLE_3REDI_S9-1-35.13LAOPAR
Habitat The City contributes to MHCP and MSCP.
Percentage of city that is open space Over one-third is designated for open space.
Lake Forest General Plan
(2020)
Land Use Element: Community Park/Open Space; Regional Park Open Space, Open Space, Lake, and Transportation
Corridor with open space uses land use designations. Table LU-1 “Land Use Development Potential Summary”
identifies 3,153 gross acres (or 29.4%) of the city total 10,742 acres of the above-mentioned land uses. This is not
the same as park and open space holdings.
Recreation and Resources Element policies promote park and open space connectivity, preservation of existing open
space, and protection of natural resources.
Regulations The City of Lake Forest has general zoning districts that are included in the City’s Zoning Code, and nine different
Planned Communities that are separate individual planning documents. There are parks and open spaces in each
community. For example, the Baker Ranch plan has open space use regulations and site development standards.
Open space areas consist primarily of creek corridors, riding and hiking trails, manufactured slopes, and natural open
space.
Habitat General Plan Action RR-5 - Require new development, as well as infrastructure projects, long-range planning
projects, and other projects, to comply with the requirements of the Orange County Central-Coastal Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) to ensure that potentially significant impacts
to special-status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed.
Percentage of city that is open space 29.4% of the city total acres are designated with open space and transportation corridor land use designations
9
Jurisdiction Document Topic
Mission Viejo General Plan
(2013)
General Plan designated open space makes up 2,727.4 gross acres of the city’s total 11,646 gross acres (23.4%), per
the Land Use Element Table LU-3 (2021)
Conservation/Open Space Element (2021) states that the City’s recreational components consist of public and
private parks, golf courses, regional trails, greenbelts, utility easements, recreational centers, Lake Mission Viejo,
and O’Neill Regional Park. Also states that “Mission Viejo is different from many Orange County communities in
that the privately-owned parkland in the city contributes greatly to the City's overall recreational picture. The largest
privately-owned recreational assets are Lake Mission Viejo, Mission Viejo Country Club golf course, and Arroyo
Trabuco Golf Club as shown in Figure COS-5. There are also numerous recreational facilities and areas owned and
maintained by homeowner associations.”
Standards – Open space linkages are regional parks are identified as types of parkland without associated numerical
standards.
Open space opportunities - relate to the linkage of existing parkland to establish an open space system.
Regulations Chpt. 91.13 Open Space Zone and Recreation Zone. FAR of 0.5. Lot Coverage: 50%
Residential Planned Development Zones: 50-60% coverage; Private outdoor living space: 50-500 sq. feet
Habitat County of Orange Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan
Other County of Orange Master Plan of Local Parks referenced
Percentage of city that is open space General Plan designated open space makes up 23.4% of the city’s total acres
ATTACHMENT 3
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
SEPT. 22, 2022
OPEN SPACE STANDARD
Fifteen percent of the total land area in the Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ)
exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land must be set aside for
permanent open space and must be available concurrent with development.
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This report is informational only and is intended to help guide the Carlsbad Tomorrow – Growth
Management Citizens Committee’s discussion on the Growth Management open space standard, as well
as open space in Carlsbad more generally.
APPLICABILITY OF THE OPEN SPACE STANDARD
Open space to meet the standard is provided concurrent with approval of development projects within
the Local Facility Management Zones where the standard applies, which is Local Facilities Management
Zones 11 – 15 and 17 – 25. The standard does not apply in Zones 1 – 10 and 16. A map of the facility
zones is provided in Attachment 1 – Local Facilities Management Zones Map.
BACKGROUND
The history of the open space standard is helpful in understanding its applicability today. Below is a
summary of the standard’s history. It should be noted that the open space provided to meet the open
space standard does not represent all of the open space in Carlsbad (see section titled Open Space
Categories for more information).
• Report of the Citizens Committee for the Review of the Land Use Element (July 1985)
The committee delivered its report in July 1985 and its recommendations were used as the basis
for developing the growth management facility standards. On the topic of open space, the
committee did not recommend a growth management standard for open space; instead:
o The committee determined that the amount of open space designated in the Land Use
Element was an adequate amount (a minority of the committee thought there wasn’t
enough open space). Information provided to the 1985 committee indicated that
approximately 25 percent of the city’s total land area at that time was designated open
space.
Note: today, 38 percent of the city’s total land area is designated as open space
(Attachment 2 – Open Space Map).
o The committee recommended the General Plan Land Use Element define four categories of
open space for: 1. preservation of natural resources; 2. managed production of resources; 3.
outdoor recreation; and 4. public health and safety.
Note: today’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element defines four categories of
open space for: 1. Preservation of natural resources; 2. Managed production of resources; 3.
Outdoor recreation; and 4. Aesthetic, cultural and educational purposes.
----
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
SEPT. 22, 2022
2
The committee recommended:
▪ All four categories of open space be addressed in future master plans.
▪ Future development be prohibited from designated open space areas
▪ The city ensure public access and maintenance of accesses to lagoons and beaches
▪ The city encourage maximum parking accommodations to enhance use of the beach
Note: the city implemented these recommendations through various policies and
regulations.
• Public Facility Standards (July 1986) and Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (Sept. 1986)
In July 1986, the City Council adopted the Growth Management Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Title 21, Chapter 21.90) and the public facility standards for the Growth Management
Program. In September 1986 the standards were incorporated in the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan. The adopted open space standard was “Fifteen percent of the total land
area in the zone exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land must be set
aside for permanent open space and must be available concurrent with development.”
The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan specified that the open space standard applies in
some Local Facility Management Zones (Zones 11 – 15 and 17 – 25), but not others (Zones 1 –
10 and 16) because those zones were determined to have already been developed or to have
already met the standard (Attachment 1 – Local Facilities Management Zones Map). This
methodology is consistent with traditional land use methodology which applies new standards
prospectively. (See 2020/2021 Growth Management Program Monitoring Report p. 27; Friends
of H Street v. City of Sacramento (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 152, 169 [California's planning statutes
"address future growth, and do not require local governments to bring existing neighborhoods
and streets into compliance with the general plan."].)
The following are some key facts during the development of the open space standard.
o Following the 1985 committee report, as part of the development of the Growth
Management Program, the city identified areas that were, at the time, “urbanized”
(developed areas) “urbanizing” (some development or some level of planning completed,
such as an existing master plan) and “future urbanizing” (very little to no development and
no existing master plan). See Attachment 3 – 1986 Development Status Map and
Information.
▪ A comparison of the Local Facilities Management Zones map (Attachment 1) and the
1986 Development Status Map (Attachment 3) shows that the zones where the open
space standard is applicable (Zones 11 – 15 and 17 – 25) align, for the most part, with
the areas identified in 1986 as “future urbanizing,” which is where future master plans
would be required (e.g., Aviara, Bressi Ranch and Quarry Creek master plans) and is
consistent with the 1985 committee recommendation for master plans to provide
additional future open space.
▪ The “urbanized” areas were already developed, and the “urbanizing” areas had
previously approved development or master plans. Although the open space standard
was not applied to the “urbanizing” areas, the existing approved master plans within
these areas provided open space as required by city regulations in place at the time.
Prior to the Growth Management Program and the open space standard, the city’s
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
SEPT. 22, 2022
3
zoning ordinance required 15 percent of the total area of any master plan to be
designated as open space. This 15 percent standard differs from the Growth
Management open space standard because it applies to the total land area of a master
plan and does not exclude environmentally constrained non-developable land.
Following the adoption of the Growth Management Program, the city continued efforts to prioritize the
protection of open space in Carlsbad. A summary of those efforts is provided in Attachment 4 –
Summary of Carlsbad’s Open Space Preservation History.
FACILITY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
As stated above, open space to meet the standard is provided concurrent with the approval of
development projects within the Local Facility Management Zones where the standard applies.
As development projects are processed through the city’s review process, they are evaluated to verify
that all regulations and standards are satisfied, including the growth management open space standard,
if applicable. The decision-making body (Planning Commission or City Council) makes a finding that all
requirements are met.
To date, approved development projects and dedication of open space has been found to satisfy the open
space standard in Local Facility Management Zones 11-15, 17-21, and 23-25. In Local Facility Management
Zone 22, the approved development to date has not yet met the open space standard; however, as future
development occurs in this zone, additional open space will be required.
FUNDING AND OBTAINING OPEN SPACE
Open space provided to meet the Growth Management open space standard is provided concurrent
with new development, and is typically private open space (e.g., recreation areas and landscape buffers)
within a development that is paid for and maintained by the developer and community (HOA).
In general, cities can obtain open space through dedications or fees from developers for public facilities
and can require a certain amount of land in a development be left in open space. When requiring open
space on privately owned land, the city must ensure the owner is not denied a reasonable use of their
land and that the owner is not denied the right to develop their property, unless the owner is willing to
sell their land and is compensated.
In addition to developer dedication of open space to meet the Growth Management open space
standard, there are other methods the city can use to acquire open space, including:
Acquisition in Fee
The city purchases property at fair market value. Fund sources could include:
• The General Fund ($1 million spend limit without vote)
• Voter approved bond measure or special tax. An example of voter approved funding in Carlsbad
is Proposition C, which was passed by the voters in 2001 and authorized the City Council to
spend up to $35 million on four projects of community interest, one of which was open space
and trail linkages. See Attachment X, which includes a description of Proposition C and related
open space acquisition.
• Require developers to pay into a fund that could be used for future purchase of open space.
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
SEPT. 22, 2022
4
• As discussed below, to comport with the original intent that open space can be achieved
“without having to buy it,” the expenditure of open space funds would be limited by the amount
received from private development projects.
Negotiated Open Space
The city requires open space as part of approval of a development project, such as:
• Require dedication of park land or payment of a fee in-lieu of dedication. The city currently
collects park fees in-lieu of dedication.
• Allow a property owner to transfer the permitted density for the whole site to a smaller portion
of the site in exchange for retaining the other portion in open space. The city currently allows
this.
• Require a percentage of development projects to be open space. In Local Facility Management
Zones where the Growth Management open space standard is applicable, the city already
requires 15 percent of development projects, excluding constrained lands, to be open space.
• Require a development project to dedicate nondevelopable areas (e.g., steep slopes, wetlands,
floodways, sensitive habitat) as open space (note: this is not Growth Management open space).
While the city has identified most nondevelopable areas and has dedicated them as open space,
new development projects throughout the city are evaluated to determine if any land area
should be retained in open space due to environmental constraints.
In 1988, the city formed a citizens committee to review the city’s open space programs; the committee’s
report was completed in July 1989). As part of the committee’s work, city staff provided information on
the open space standard and stated: “that the amount of open space now required under the Growth
Management Plan can be achieved without having to buy it, but also that the city has pushed to the
limit what can be achieved without a monetary acquisition program.” This remains true today.
Examples of How the City Provides and Protects Open Space Overall
The examples below (not a complete list) show that the Growth Management open space standard is not
the only method the city uses to provide and protect open space.
• General Plan – designates all dedicated open space areas as “open space” on the Land Use and
Open Space Maps and includes policies that protect these areas from development.
• Habitat Management Plan – guides the design, management, monitoring, and public use of the
city’s natural open space preserve system.
• Growth Management Open Space standard – in Local Facility Management Zones where the
standard applies (Zones 11-15 and 17-25).
• Growth Management Parks standard – parks are also considered open space.
• Trails Master Plan – identifies where trails will be constructed; trails are open space.
• Zoning Ordinance
o Open Space Zone applied to all areas designated by the General Plan as “open space” and
specifies regulations that protect these areas from development.
----
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
SEPT. 22, 2022
5
o Chapter 21.210 Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements – assures
compliance with the Habitat Management Plan.
o Chapter 21.38 Planned Community Zone – requires 15 percent of the total area of a
master plan to be open space (primarily aligns with the areas subject to the Growth
Management open space standard).
o Chapter 21.209 – Cannon Road Agricultural/Open Space Zone – supports continued
agriculture and identifies authorized open space uses on agriculture areas south of
Cannon Road and east of Paseo Del Norte.
o Various other development standards that require open space, recreation areas and
landscaped buffers/setbacks within development projects.
OPEN SPACE CATEGORIES
Open space is one of Carlsbad’s defining features and serves several different purposes. Open space to
meet the growth management standard is just a part of all the open space in Carlsbad. Many open space
areas are conserved as natural habitat. Other open space areas fulfill both habitat conservation and
recreational needs or are specifically designated for recreational use.
Land within the Carlsbad covers about 39 square miles (25,021 acres), 38 percent of which is designated
as open space. About 78 percent of this open space is comprised of natural open space such as native
habitats, lagoons, and streams. The city’s open space network boasts three lagoons, over 67 miles of trails,
and almost seven miles of coastline. Attachment 2 – Open Space Map is a map of all dedicated open
space in Carlsbad, of which some is open space dedicated to meet the open space standard in Local Facility
Management Zones 11 – 15 and 17 – 25. Open space overall has been designated throughout Carlsbad in
the following four categories:
Table 1: Categories of Open Space
# Category Description Percentage of
Total Open Space
1
Protection of
natural
resources
Plant and animal habitat, nature preserves, beaches and bluffs,
wetland and riparian areas, canyons and hillsides, and water
features such as lagoons and streams.
Note: the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (2004) is the city’s
primary guide on the natural habitat areas of the city that should
be protected and dedicated as open space.
78%
2
Managed
production of
resources
Agriculture areas north and south of Cannon Road, aquaculture
(Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute), water management
(Maerkle Reservoir), and could include commercial fisheries, and
mineral resources.
3.5%
3 Outdoor
recreation
Public parks and recreation areas, school playfields, golf courses,
and private recreation areas in development projects. 12.5%
4
Aesthetic,
cultural and
educational
purposes
In Carlsbad this type of open space primarily consists of land use
buffers and ornamental landscaping around and within
development projects; other examples could include greenbelts
providing separation from surrounding communities, arboreta,
and botanical gardens.
6%
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
SEPT. 22, 2022
6
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE STANDARD
There have been a number of questions about the existing standards and history of them. This section
summarizes the some of those questions and the information available.
Applicability of the standard
Questions have been raised on why the open space standard does not apply to Local Facilities
Management Zones 1 – 10 and 16. That was a determination made by the City Council when they adopted
the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan and the open space standard in 1986.
Furthermore, the 1985 committee determined that open space was adequate and that future master
plans should provide more open space, which would occur in the areas identified as “future urbanizing
areas” (Attachment 3 – 1986 Development Status Map and Information). Zones 1 – 10 and 16 were in
areas where no new master plans were anticipated (“urbanized” areas) or in areas where there was
approved development or master plans (“urbanizing” areas). The approved master plans within the
“urbanizing” areas did provide open space to meet the standard applicable to them (Zoning Ordinance
requirement for master plans to provide 15 percent of the master plan area as open space).
Is there a 40 percent open space requirement?
There have also been some misconceptions that there is a standard that requires 40 percent open
space. There is no requirement or standard that requires 40 percent open space per individual projects
or on a citywide basis.
As explained in the 2015 General Plan Environmental Impact Report Master Response MR1-2, neither
Proposition E nor the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) performance standards required
40 percent open space. Proposition E states “emphasis shall be given to ensuring good traffic circulation,
schools, parks, libraries, open space, and recreational amenities.” The CFIP open space standard states
“Fifteen percent of the total land area in the zone, exclusive of environmentally constrained non-
developable land…concurrent with development.” The CFIP also states that LMFZ Zones 1-10 and 16
“are already developed or meet or exceed the requirement” and are not required to comply with the
open space standard. Generic references to 40 percent open space, are a shorthand estimate derived by
adding the 25 percent estimated constrained lands to the 15 percent CFIP open space standard.
However, this shorthand estimate does not take into account that the CFIP exemption; i.e. 15 percent
open space standard applied to only 14 of the 25 Local Facility Management Zones, rather than the
entire city.
A July 8, 1986, City Council staff report on the facility standards states: “compliance with this [open
space] standard should result in approximately 35 to 40% of the total land area in the city being open
space when the city is fully built out.” A couple years later, a June 27, 1988, staff report to an open
space committee, stated that “staff has estimated that approximately 10,000 acres or 38.5% of the total
land area in the city is projected to be set aside for open space uses.
The reference to 40 percent open space was an estimate, not a standard or goal. Today, 38 percent of
Carlsbad is dedicated as open space; it seems the estimate was fairly accurate.
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
SEPT. 22, 2022
7
Open Space in Local Facilities Management Zone 9
As noted previously, the open space standard does not apply to Local Facilities Management Zone 9
(Attachment 1 – Local Facilities Management Zones Map), which includes part of the Ponto area and the
majority of the zone is subject to the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. This is an area where the city has
received community comments stating that the zone does not meet the open space standard and more
open space is needed. In 1986 the City Council determined that the open space needs for Zone 9 had been
met and therefore the open space standard does not apply to Zone 9.
Zone 9 was an “urbanizing” area when the Growth Management Program was being developed. A master
plan was approved for the area (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan). The master plan met
the open space standard required at the time (Zoning Ordinance), which is 15 percent of the total area of
the master plan.
The following is a summary of actions related to Zone 9 that relate to the open space planned in that area:
• Oct. 1, 1985 – Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan approved by City Council and, as
required by the zoning ordinance at the time, was required to provide a minimum 15 percent of
the total master plan area as open space.
• May 6, 1986 – City Council staff report on development of the Growth Management Program:
o City council directed staff, working in conjunction with the developer of Zone 9, to finalize a
pilot local facility management program to serve as a format model for programs for the other
zones. The Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan for Zone 9 had been approved the
year before and it was a recent development plan to use as a model.
• June 24, 1986 – Growth Management Ordinance approved (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.90):
o Section 21.90.030(g) allowed development of phase I of the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational
Park Master Plan to proceed prior to approval of a Local Facility Management Plan for Zone
9, subject to certain conditions including that the developer agree to participate in the
restoration of a significant lagoon and wetland resource area and make any dedications of
property necessary to accomplish the restoration. The master plan developer did make the
open space land dedications that were needed for the restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon.
• Sept. 16, 1986 – City Council approves the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, including
the open space standard with the clarification that the standard is not applicable in Zones 1-10
and 16.
• July 11, 1989 – City Council approves the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9. Other than
noting the existing open space within the zone, open space was not further analyzed in the plan,
as the open space standard does not apply to Zone 9.
• Jan. 18, 1994 – City Council adopts an ordinance approving Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, which
replaced the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan. The related Planning Commission
staff report (Oct. 20, 1993) evaluates open space in the master plan as follows:
“The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan will not adjust or modify any existing General Plan designated
open space areas or boundaries. Of the project's 162.8 total acres, approximately 34.8 acres are
natural lagoon/wetland habitat which have Open Space General Plan designations (planning areas
"I", "K", and "L") and have already been dedicated in fee title to the State of California, State Lands
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
SEPT. 22, 2022
8
Commissions in accordance with previous BLEP [Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park] approvals.
The master plan has additional open space totaling approximately 11 acres comprised of a
community recreation center (planning area "M") and open space areas consisting of blufftop and
roadway setbacks. The total master plan open space (approximately 46 acres) represents 28% of
the entire master plan area. This exceeds the [Zoning Ordinance] requirement of at least 15% of
the master plan area (24.4 acres) to be set aside as open space. As outlined in the Citywide
Facilities Improvement Plan and the Zone 9 LFMP, this master plan has complied with all open
space requirements. The project is also consistent with the Open Space and Conservation
Resource Management Plan and incorporates master plan trails and links with the Citywide Trails
System as required. The master plan's frontage on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard (planning
areas "G" and "H") is the location for linkage with the Citywide Trails System. These planning areas
will be required to provide for the trail link within the required 40-foot structural setback from
Carlsbad Boulevard. … On August 26, 1993, the master plan's open space program was reviewed
by the City's Open Space Advisory Committee and unanimously supported…”
While the open space standard is not applicable to Zone 9, open space has been provided for the area,
including private recreation areas, trail linkages and a significant natural open space dedication that
helped in the restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon, which is a significant natural resource to the community.
Options for Future Open Space
As described in this report, the Growth Management open space standard is only a part of the open
space system in Carlsbad. The applicability of the standard was focused on “undeveloped” areas (in
1986) where large development projects and master planned communities would be built. Most of
these previously “undeveloped” areas are now developed or have approved development plans. The
existing open space standard has limited applicability in the future.
As the city matures, the city must consider how to continue to protect and provide open space when
facing the challenges in securing vacant land available for open space; including the limitations set by
new state housing laws that limit the city’s ability to reduce residential densities or change residential
land to a different use.
Because of the challenges in securing vacant available land for more open space than is currently
planned, options for a different open space standard are limited and involve additional cost to the city.
As stated above under “funding and obtaining open space,” during the city’s evaluation of its open space
programs in 1988, city staff provided a report that concluded “the amount of open space now required
under the Growth Management Plan can be achieved without having to buy it, but also that the city has
pushed to the limit what can be achieved without a monetary acquisition program.”
As a result of Proposition C (see Attachment 4 – Summary of Carlsbad’s Open Space Preservation
History), the city does have an acquisition program in place. However, the city has faced challenges in
acquiring lands for open space, as recommended by the Proposition C open space committee. The city
actively looks for properties that could be purchased with this funding; however, a primary challenge is
finding a landowner willing to sell their property at a fair market value, which is a requirement for the
city.
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
SEPT. 22, 2022
9
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Local Facilities Management Zones Map [PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED]
Attachment 2 – Open Space Map [PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED]
Attachment 3 – 1986 Development Status Map and Information
Attachment 4 – Summary of Carlsbad’s Open Space Preservation History
..
--Developmental Status Map
■cATE_GORY I: URBANIZED
§CATEGORY II: URBANIZING
� CATEGORY Ill: FUTURE URBANIZING
DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS CATEGORIES
City divided into three categories based upon their overall developmental status, level of urbanization and existing level of adequacy of public facilities and services. The three categories and the criteria used as a guide for each one is as follows:
I.Urbanized
II.
1.Older developed areas of City.
2.Primarily developed or immediately contiguous or surrounded by developed areas.
3.Additional development considered infill.
4.Public facilities basically adequate for level of anticipated, additional development.
5.Infill requirements in terms of completing public facilities or infrastructure.
Urbanizing
1.Some development in area.
2.Newer developing area of City.
3.Some level of planning already completed (i.e,existing master plan).
4.Adjacent to or considered a logical extention of a Category I (Urbanized) area.
III.Future Urbanizing
1.Very little or no development.
2.Isolated from existing services and facilities.
3.Isolated from existing development (i.e, not immediately adjacent to or surrounded by a Category I or II area (Urbanized or Orbanizin�).
4.No existing master plan or existing master plan outdated.
(;
.
The significance of the categories is as follows:
A)Required degree of detail and level offor preparation of a Developmental andManagement Program (see Attachment 5).and planning will be required in ordermanagement program for the category inproperty is located.
the sophistication Community Facilities Additional detail to prepare a which an area or
Specific Public Phasing -Timing Funding Source/ Facility/Service of Public Facility Mechanism For Requirements /Service Require-Requirement (WHAT) ment (WHEN) (HOW}
Category II X
Cateciorv II X X
Category III X X X
B)
X -Detailed Planning Needed
City staff to prepare proposed Category I (Urbanized) areas. reviewing management programs proposed to be as follows:
management program for Priority for preparing and for other categories is
1st Priority -Category II (Urbanizing) 2nd Priority -Category III (Future Urbanizing)
C)Priority for determining City involvement and level ofparticipation in providing facilities or correctinginadequacies (i.e, capital facilities programming,assessment district formation, bond financing) is proposedto be as follows:
1st Priority -Category I (Urbanized) 2nd Priority -Category II (Urbanizing) 3rd Priority -Category III (Future Urbanizing)
(B)and (C) above will tend to favor and encourage infilldevelopment.
--
Developmental and Community Facllltles Management ·zones
ZONES 1-8 URBANIZED
ZONES 7-12 URBANIZING
ZONES 13-25 FUTURE URBANIZING
15
18
ROAD
1 7 1 8
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
L
�N
D
CO
MM
U
N
I
T
Y
FA
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
MA
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
ZO
N
E
BO
UN
D
A
R
I
E
S
Fo
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
th
e
Ci
t
y
wa
s
di
v
i
d
e
d
in
t
o
25
zo
n
e
s
.
Th
e
s
e
wo
ul
d
be
si
m
i
l
a
r
bu
t
on
a
sm
al
l
e
r
sc
al
e
to
wh
at
so
m
e
ci
t
i
e
s
ca
ll
co
mm
u
n
i
t
y
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
.
Th
e
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
th
a
t
wa
s
us
e
d
as
a
gu
i
d
e
fo
r
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g
th
e
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
of
th
e
zo
n
e
s
wa
s
as
fo
l
l
o
w
s
:
1.
Bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ma
s
t
e
r
pl
a
n
s
2.
Bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
of
pe
n
d
i
n
g
ma
s
t
e
r
pl
a
n
s
3.
Bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fu
t
u
r
e
mast
e
r
pl
a
n
ar
e
a
s
4.
Av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
of
pu
b
l
i
c
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
5.
Pu
b
l
i
c
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
re
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
th
e
Ci
t
y
'
s
pl
a
n
n
e
d
ma
j
o
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
ne
t
w
o
r
k
6.
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
wh
e
r
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
7.
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
th
e
th
r
e
e
de
v
e
l
op
m
e
n
t
a
l
st
at
u
s
ca
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
{u
r
b
a
n
i
z
e
d
,
ur
b
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
an
d
fu
t
u
r
e
ur
b
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
)
..
b'
\
Summary of Carlsbad’s Open Space History
Carlsbad has a long history of prioritizing the protection of open space and natural resources and
providing open spaces for community recreation. A summary and links (if available) of some of the
major efforts related to open space in Carlsbad include:
• Citizens Committee for the Review of the Land Use Element (1985) made recommendations on
policies related to future growth, including open space.
• Citywide Facilities and Improvements Program (1986), a part of the Growth Management
Program (1986), sets standards for 11 public facilities, including parks and other open space.
• Citizens Committee for Open Space (1988-1989) reviewed the city’s open space plans and
programs and made recommendations on open space protection.
• Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan (1992) called for development of a
comprehensive open space system.
• General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element (1994) included policies to guide protection
and creation of open space areas, including policies that aligned with the recommendations of
the Citizens Committee for Open Space.
• Open Space Advisory Committee (1990-1995) reviewed and made recommendations on the
open space of master plans and other major development proposals.
• Proposition C (2002) authorized the City Council to spend more than $1 million to acquire open
space and build trails. As of 2022, the city has spent $4.2 million on open space and trails
projects, including South Shore Agua Hedionda Lagoon Trail Improvements, Arroyo Vista Trail
Extension, Lake Calavera Trails, 6125 Paseo del Norte open space purchase and Aura Circle open
space purchase. $1.8 million remains budgeted for future open space purchases.
• Trails Program Report (2001) and Trails Implementation Plan (2002) outlined a future vision for
a citywide trails plan and identified private trails to be made public and new public trails to be
built.
• Community Forest Management Plan (2002/2019) describes how the city will care for its trees
(on city owned properties), provides a list of the tree species the city can plant in areas adjacent
to public streets, and sets a goal of increasing the overall number of trees on city owned or
controlled properties.
• Habitat Management Plan (2004) guides the preservation and protection of sensitive biological
resources within the city while allowing for continued economic development. The plan guides
the design, management, monitoring, and public use of the city’s natural open space preserve
system. Carlsbad is the only North County city with an approved Habitat Management Plan,
which is a 50-year comprehensive biological approach to preserving natural land for plant and
animal species.
• Open Space Management Plan (2005) establishes procedures, standards, guidelines and
conditions for long-term conservation and management of sensitive species and habitat.
• Proposition C Open Space and Trails Ad Hoc Committee (2005 – 2007); established a prioritized
list of potential property acquisitions for open space protection and trail linkages. The
committee’s recommendations aided the City Council in the use of Proposition C funds (see
“Proposition C”, above).
• General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element (2015) provides policies that address the
communities open space needs for habitat and resource conservation, and parks and recreation.
• Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan (2015, update in process) identifies needs and
priorities for park and recreation facilities; provides a guide to achieve a balance of programing,
facilities and amenities.
• Trails Master Plan (2019) is a blueprint for how city trails will be developed and managed in the
future.
• Carlsbad Preserve Management Plan (2021) provides management, monitoring, and
reporting guidelines for the conservation goals for certain properties owned and managed
by the City of Carlsbad.
Quality of Life Statement Table
Quality of Life
Topic
Other related programs
and agencies that address
this topic in Carlsbad
Committee Conversation and Draft Language
Homelessness
City of Carlsbad Housing &
Homeless Services
Department
Homeless Response Plan
Work Plan
Homelessness is an important issue to the quality of life for the residents of Carlsbad and should remain a
priority for the City Council in the Strategic Plan and Operating Budget.
Seniors/aging
community
City of Carlsbad Age-
Friendly Action Plan
City of Carlsbad Parks &
Recreation Department
senior programs and senior
center
City of Carlsbad Senior
Commission
County Aging &
Independence Services
The Senior community and aging population is an important issue to the quality of life for the residents of
Carlsbad and should remain a priority for the City Council in the Strategic Plan and Operating Budget.
Arts and
culture
City of Carlsbad Arts &
Culture Master Plan
City of Carlsbad Library &
Cultural Arts programs and
services
On Jan. 26, 2023, the Committee discussed the topic of arts and culture and received a presentation by Suzanne
Smithson on the programs within the Library & Cultural Arts Department regarding Arts and Culture.
The Committee did not take action to add an arts and culture standard to the Growth Management Plan, but by
consensus agreed to include a statement in this document that arts and culture is an important issue to the
quality of life for the residents of Carlsbad and should remain a priority for the City Council in the Strategic Plan
and Operating Budget.
Quality of Life Statement Table
Quality of Life
Topic
Other related programs
and agencies that address
this topic in Carlsbad
Committee Conversation and Draft Language
Update
Proposition H
Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.24
During committee deliberation it was discussed that Proposition H, as implemented by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 1.24.030, has not been updated since it was passed by voters in the 1980s and it may be time to
consider increasing the expenditure limit due to increased project costs.
Additionally, at the Jan. 26, 2023 meeting, the committee recommended making an additional financial carve
out for a future fire station seven construction from the requirement of Proposition H.
Transportation
and Mobility Sustainable Mobility Plan
The Committee has made a recommendation for the Growth Management Circulation [Transportation and
Mobility] Standard (provided in a separate report).
Additionally, on Jan. 26, 2023, the committee by consensus recommended that a statement be added to this
quality-of-life document to recommend that the city:
• Utilize the Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) and Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee (MTIF) to
implement future multimodal transportation projects that provide the greatest benefit to the
community;
o Review of current facilities,
o Relationship between existing traffic operations, changing commute patterns, regional traffic
volume growth, traffic safety and new disruptive trends in mobility technologies, and
o Development of standards and a fee structure for private development to provide a fair share
to partially fund the buildout of the city’s multimodal transportation network.
• Require new development to conduct intersection Level of Service (LOS) and Multimodal Level-of-
Service (MMLOS) analysis to determine direct project impacts in accordance with the city’s Local
Mobility Analysis Guidelines
DRAFT
DRAINAGE STANDARD
Existing standard (confirmed)
Drainage infrastructure must be provided as required by the city concurrent with development.
Rationale
Adequate drainage infrastructure will continue to contribute to Carlsbad’s quality of life as the
city manages growth by improving public safety, safeguarding the environment and protecting
property from flooding.
Unlike some other performance standards, drainage infrastructure needs are specific to
individual projects.
City subject matter experts have assured the committee that this standard could be applied
effectively to the types of residential development expected in the future.
Status
Based on the 2020-2021 Growth Management Monitoring Report, the growth management drainage
standard has been met consistently.
Carlsbad --v----:
TOMORR W
DRAFT
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
SYSTEM STANDARD
Existing standard (confirmed)
Trunk line capacity to meet demand, as determined by the appropriate wastewater districts,
must be provided concurrent with development.
Rationale
Evaluating, maintaining and increasing the city’s wastewater collection and conveyance system as
development occurs is essential to preserving public health, the environment and quality of life.
The City of Carlsbad, Leucadia Wastewater District and Vallecitos Water District provide this
service within the city’s boundaries.
The city develops and assesses wastewater system capacity every five years through a master
planning process that considers General Plan land use designations, development density and
population projections. The latest master plan was completed in 2019.
Unlike some other performance standards, wastewater collection system needs are specific to
individual projects.
The city requires studies during discretionary project review for sewer system sizing to determine
what infrastructure, if any, must be built concurrently with the project.
Status
Based on the 2020-2021 Growth Management Monitoring Report, all three agencies provided
wastewater collection service have adequate conveyance capacity in place to meet Carlsbad’s
wastewater collection demands.
Carlsbad --v----:
TOMORR W
DRAFT
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
STANDARD
Existing standard
Line capacity to meet demand as determined by the appropriate water district must be provided
concurrent with development. A minimum of 10-day average storage capacity must be provided
prior to any development.
Proposed new standard
Concurrent with development, coordinate with the appropriate water district to ensure water
pipelines have capacity to meet increased demand.
Rationale
Reliable delivery of safe drinking water is essential for public health, quality of life and the city’s
economy as the city manages future growth.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District, which is a subsidiary district of the City of Carlsbad, Olivenhain
Municipal Water District (southern Carlsbad) and Vallecitos Water District (parts of eastern
Carlsbad) distribute water within the city’s boundaries.
These water districts prepare water master plans to forecast future infrastructure needs, among
other things.
When a residential development project is proposed, city staff consult the appropriate water
master plan to check pipeline sizes and facility capacities. If needed, developers will be required
to build projects identified in the master plan concurrently with the project.
The committee recommends removing the storage requirement because the standard is not
intended to address water supply, just infrastructure. Additionally, the city has developed
adequate storage capacity since the original standard was developed.
Status
Based on the 2020-2021 Growth Management Monitoring Report, all three water districts serving
Carlsbad have plans in place to ensure water distribution capacity will keep pace with
development.
•
Carlsbad --v----:
TOMORR W
DRAFT
LIBRARY FACILITIES STANDARD
Existing standard (confirmed)
800 sq. ft. of library facilities per 1,000 population must be scheduled for construction within a
five-year period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units, beginning at the time the need is
first identified.
Rationale
The City of Carlsbad’s library system is well-utilized by the community and will continue to
contribute greatly to quality of life as the city manages future growth.
Technological advances have not minimized the need for physical library space. Instead, modern
libraries are focused on more flexible spaces that can adapt readily to changing community
priorities and needs.
The library industry has moved away from formulaic calculations per capita to determine space
needs, but as not replaced it with a new standard. As such, the committee recommends that the
library standard remain as was written in the original Growth Management Program.
Status
Based on the 2020-2021 Growth Management Monitoring Report, Carlsbad libraries have the
resources needed to provide an excellent level of service.
Based on the June 30, 2021 population estimate of 116,025, the growth management standard
requires 92,820 sq. ft. of public library space. The city’s current 99,993 sq. ft. of library facilities
adequately meets the growth management standard.
Facility Square Feet
Dove Library 64,000
Cole Library 24,600
Learning Center 11,393
Total 99,993
M
Carlsbad --v----:
TOMORR W
DRAFT
MOBILITY STANDARD
Existing standard (confirmed)
Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system – vehicles,
pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain Level of Service D or better for all prioritized
modes of travel, as identified in the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding Level of Service
exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council.
Rationale
The ability to move safely and conveniently throughout the city will remain critical to quality of
life and the local economy as the city manages future growth.
The committee believes vehicle traffic congestion needs to be addressed, and streets should
better accommodate all modes of travel.
The 2015 General Plan update calls for a multimodal Complete Streets network throughout the
city, which will accommodate all modes of travel (auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian). These
modes will be prioritized differently, depending on the size and purpose of each street.
The city is currently developing a multimodal impact fee to fund the transformation of city streets
to meet current and future demands. Once complete, the proposed standard could be reviewed
to ensure alignment with the new impact fee program.
Other considerations
Some committee members preferred a staff recommendation to change the standard to one that
relied upon the Sustainable Mobility Plan and a new multi-modal transportation impact fee to
address citywide improvements. The majority of the committee voted to recommend the current
standard be kept in place.
Status
Based on the 2020-2021 Growth Management Monitoring Report, all the deficient roadway
facilities identified in the report were previously determined by City Council to be deficient and
exempt per General Plan Mobility Policy 3-P.10. The Multimodal Level of Service analysis
continues to be developed with the Traffic & Mobility Commission. The initial Multimodal Level of
Service will be presented to the Traffic & Mobility Commission in the spring of 2023.
Carlsbad --v----:
TOMORR W
DRAFT
PARKS STANDARD
Existing standard (confirmed)*
3.0 acres of community park or special use area per 1,000 population within the park district
must be scheduled for construction within a five-year period beginning at the time the need is
first identified.
Additional recommendation
*The committee is requesting that the City Council direct staff to evaluate the feasibility of
creating and implementing a standard based upon a specific distance between public parks and
housing.
Rationale
Access to parks contributes to public health, social connectivity and overall quality of life while
managing growth.
The city’s parks standard has evolved from the early 1980s, but has always been based on a ratio
of park land to population, with a five-year timeframe to meet the standard. The five-year period
allows demand to accumulate to the point that construction of a new park would be warranted.
As the committee evaluated the current parks standard, they reviewed how Carlsbad compares
with neighboring cities, discussed alternative ways to inventory park land in the city, and
questioned whether counting acreage by quadrant is the most effective way to achieve park
goals.
Status
The city is currently exceeding the parks performance standard and is projected to exceed the
standard at complete buildout as reflected in the chart below.
Quadrant Park acreage inventory
existing
Current park acreage
required by standard
Park acreage required
by standard at city
buildout
NW 131.7 94.1 117.4
NE 68.7 54.6 68.2
SW 93.6 79.0 86.5
SE 138.3 120.4 127.6
Total 432.4 348.1 399.7
t
Carlsbad --v----:
TOMORR W
From:Frank A. Caraglio
To:"Frank A. Caraglio"
Cc:Growth Management Committee; Susan Harden; "Bailey Warren"; "thierryibri@yahoo.com"
Subject:Suggestions - new name for Quality of Life Memo
Date:Wednesday, February 22, 2023 8:58:03 AM
Hello Committee Members,
As I mentioned, I will not be present at the meeting this week on February 23rd. However, Ido have a suggestion for the below new name(s) for the Quality of Life Memo that will
accompany the growth management plan recommendations to City Council.
Supplemental Report - Quality of Life Considerations
or
Supplemental Report - Future Quality of Life Considerations
My 2 cents.
Thanks,Frank Caraglio
District 3 Primary Member
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Don Christiansen
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Fwd: LOCAL Solar Electric Generation AND Community Microgrids
Date:Wednesday, February 22, 2023 9:08:51 AM
Good Day Fellow Carlsbad Tomorrow Committee Members!
I'd appreciate it if you'd take at least two minutes to have a look at the video in the
following website.
https://clean-coalition.org/community-microgrids/
AND here is a quick read about France mandating solar electric canopies over large
parking lots.
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/09/new-law-50-solar-power-over-parking-lots-in-france/
Carlsbad has shown leadership in the past by supporting seawater desalination.
Carlsbad can show leadership in the future by supporting LOCAL Solar ElectricGeneration AND COMMUNITY Microgrids.
Both water and energy are addressed in our Community Vision Statement on
Sustainability, which reads: Build on the city's sustainability initiatives to emergeas a leader in green development sustainability. Pursue public/private partnerships,particularly on sustainable water, energy, recycling and foods.
Water and energy are quality of life issues.
Pleased to share that all is well in Vilcabamba.
Think Globally, Act Locally!
All the best,
Don Christiansen
Carlsbad Tomorrow Committee Member
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Mike McMahon
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Feb 23, 2023 - Local Electric Generation Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee
Date:Saturday, February 18, 2023 11:01:56 AM
Comment on environmental sustainability and power generation:
The city of Carlsbad through the Climate Action Plan is committed to winding down its fossil
fuel usage and move to a clean energy future. Right now we can see much progress in the wayour Clean Energy Alliance alternative to our monopoly utility is delivering cleaner
electricity at a better cost.
Carlsbad needs to step up and actually be that "leader in green development and sustainability"it says it is in our Vision Statement by making initial steps to create a local energy microgrid
system. Unpredictable wildfires and pacific storms are becoming more fierce and threaten ouraging grid systems and external power transmission lines.
Let's think forward and begin to lay the groundwork to make our community resilient in
local electricity production which in turn will also bring jobs and business opportunities.
Thank you for your consideration, Mike McMahon
2645 Sutter StreetCarlsbad, CA 92010
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Lance Schulte
To:Growth Management Committee; Michele Hardy; Council Internet Email; City Clerk; Kyle Lancaster; Eric Lardy;"Smith, Darren@Parks"; "Homer, Sean@Parks"; "Moran, Gina@Parks"; Boyle, Carrie@Coastal; "Prahler,Erin@Coastal"; "Ross, Toni@Coastal"; melanie@melanieforcarlsbad.com
Cc:info@peopleforponto.com
Subject:Public input for Carlsbad LCPA-Parks Master Plan & Growth Management Plan Updates - Example of how City ofEncinitas provides accessible Parks within 10-minute walk
Date:Saturday, February 18, 2023 8:10:42 AM
Dear Carlsbad City Council, Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Parks and
Planning Commissions, and CA Coastal Commission and CA State Parks:
As the City has requested specific reference regarding public input, I ask you to please deliver to the
those address this email and attachment as public input for:
1. the CTGMC’s February 23, 2023 meeting,
2. the next Carlsbad Council meeting,
3. the next Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commission meetings on the Parks Master Plan and
Growth Management Program Updates, and Carlsbad’s Ponto Planning Area F and Site 18
planning and development applications, and
4. as public input to the CA Coastal Commission on Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program
Amendment.
The City of Encinitas, a fairly ‘buildout’ city, provides a very clear and documented Park Master Plan
that addresses City Park accessibility – see
https://www.encinitasca.gov/government/departments/parks-recreation-cultural-arts/parks-
beaches-trails .
The CTGMC, Parks and Planning Commissions and City Council should read what the City of Encinitas
has done to plan to provide accessible Parks for its citizens. Carlsbad can do this too. Why not?
As noted in Feb 5 email below Carlsbad is the worst of the 24 Coastal Cities from Malibu to the
Mexican border in providing accessible City parks.
Carlsbad can do better, Encinitas is doing this, why not Carlsbad?
Please care about Carlsbad Tomorrow and provide accessible Parks.
Lance Schulte
From: Lance Schulte [mailto:meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 3:53 PMTo: 'committee@carlsbadca.gov'; 'Michele Hardy'; 'council@carlsbadca.gov'; 'City Clerk'; 'Kyle Lancaster';'Eric Lardy'; 'Smith, Darren@Parks'; 'Homer, Sean@Parks'; 'Moran, Gina@Parks'; 'Carrie Boyle'; 'Prahler,Erin@Coastal'; 'Ross, Toni@Coastal'; 'melanie@melanieforcarlsbad.com'Cc: 'info@peopleforponto.com'Subject: Public input for Carlsbad LCPA-Parks Master Plan & Growth Management Plan Updates -Carlsbad below national average and lowest So CA Coastal city in providing Parks within 10-minute walk
Dear Carlsbad City Council, Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Parks and
Planning Commissions, and CA Coastal Commission and CA State Parks:
As the City has requested specific reference regarding public input, I ask you to please deliver to the
those address this email and attachment as public input for:
1. the CTGMC’s February 2023 meeting,
2. the next Carlsbad Council meeting,
3. the next Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commission meetings on the Parks Master Plan and
Growth Management Program Updates, and Carlsbad’s Ponto Planning Area F and Site 18
planning and development applications, and
4. as public input to the CA Coastal Commission on Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program
Amendment.
For years Carlsbad Citizens have told the City that there is a need for a Park at Ponto:
· to provide for documented Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) land use at Ponto,
· to correct for the conversion of a 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use to Residential
use and the elimination of planned Coastal Open Space at Ponto,
· to correct the Carlsbad’s Park Master Plan documented lack of Park Service at Ponto,
· to provide South Carlsbad (62% of Carlsbad’s total population and the City’s major Coastal
visitor and transit occupancy tax generator) with their ONLY Coastal Park west of I-5. The
City unfairly, and contrary to CA Coastal Act Policy disproportionally provides 10 parks
totaling 37 acres west of I-5 in Coastal North Carlsbad for 38% of the population but 0 (zero)
Coastal Parks and 0 (zero) Coastal park acres west of I-5 in Coastal South Carlsbad for 62% of
the population,
· to provide for an existing 6.5 acre local Neighborhood (i.e. Special use area) Park need at
Ponto, and
· to provide a City Park within a 10-minute walk for Ponto residents.
Failure to correct this documented City Park unfairness is very damaging to the citizens, City
finances, South Carlsbad’s and California’s visitor industry. The Coastal Recreation data file sent to
you earlier documents some of the key facts.
However, we conducted some additional Trust for Public Land 10-minute walk data collection that
the City Council, CTGMC, Parks and Planning Commissions and CA Coastal Commission need to also
consider. That data is below and in the attached file, and again with last year’s Trust for Public Land
Ponto Park support letter (again attached) that reflects on Carlsbad poor performance relative to the
24 So Cal Coastal Cities (165 miles of coastline) from Malibu to the Mexican border in providing
Parks within a 10-minute walk. The data and links to the data source is:
Carlsbad is 10% below the national average for cities & the
worst of 24 Coastal So California cities - 165 miles of coastline -
in providing Parks within a 10-minute walk to residents
The Trust for Public Land documents a city’s 10-minute walk to Park at
https://www.tpl.org/parkserve
The Average USA City provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 55% of residents [10% above
Carlsbad].
Carlsbad provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 49.9% of residents [10% below National
Average].
New York City provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 99% of residents.
The Trust of Public Land submitted a letter to the City of Carlsbad, CA
Coastal Commission, and CA State Park supporting Ponto Park
Carlsbad is the worst of 24 Southern CA Coastal cities (from Malibu south to Imperial
Beach along 165 miles of coastline) in providing Parks within 10-minute walk to residents:
1. Palos Verdes Estates provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 100% of residents
2. El Segundo provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 100% of residents
3. Hermosa Beach provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 100% of residents
4. Redondo Beach provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 98% of residents
5. Manhattan Beach provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 95% of residents
6. Del Mar provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 93% of residents
7. Dana Point provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 89% of residents
8. Huntington Beach provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 85% of residents
9. Long Beach provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 84% of residents
10. Laguna Beach provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 82% of residents
11. Santa Monica provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 82% of residents
12. San Diego provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 81% of residents
13. Coronado provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 76% of residents
14. Newport Beach provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 76% of residents
15. Imperial Beach provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 74% of residents
16. Encinitas provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 68% of residents
17. Los Angeles provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 63% of residents
18. Solana Beach provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 63% of residents
19. Oceanside provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 58% of residents
20. Seal Beach provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 57% of residents
21. Malibu provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 53% of residents
22. San Clemente provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 52% of residents
23. Rancho Palos Verdes provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 50% of residents
24. Carlsbad provides Parks within 10-minute walk to 49.9% of residents.
Carlsbad is the lowest & most unfair to citizens of the 24 Southern California Coastal
cities along 165 miles of coast from Malibu to Imperial Beach.
Source of data: Trust for Public land parkscores
Trust for Public Land’s 10-minute walk to Park Maps/data:
Carlsbad = https://parkserve.tpl.org/mapping/index.html?CityID=0611194#reportTop
Encinitas = https://parkserve.tpl.org/mapping/index.html?CityID=0622678
Irvine = https://parkserve.tpl.org/mapping/index.html?CityID=0636770
Please, Please, please, consider and discuss this data, and
1. Create a 10-minute walk to City Park Standard in the
a. Parks Master Plan,
b. Growth Management Plan Update, and
c. Local Coastal Program Update.
2. Create a Park Policy that requires developers to dedicate Park Land (not pay Park-in-lieu-
fees) in areas that do not a minimum of 3 acers of City Park for each in 1,000 population
within a 10-minute walk of the developer’s proposed development (see attached CTGMC
Key Issues & Suggestions file for details and Open Space suggestions)
3. Fix Coastal South Carlsbad’s documented City Park inequity/unfairness with a significant and
real Ponto Park
4. Save tax-payers tens of millions in dollars by cost effectively purchasing vacant land at Ponto
for a Park, v. trying to maybe make a few bits of narrow PCH roadway median as a pseudo-
park
· Do you want Carlsbad to be the worst city in Coastal Southern California in providing accessible
Parks within a 10-minute walk to residents?
· Do you want Carlsbad to fail to upgrade its park standards while other cities updated their park
Standards and make their cities more desirable?
· Do you want to undermine the quality of life for Carlsbad citizens and their children by not
providing a park within a 10-minute walk to their home?
· Do you want to force Carlsbad families to have to drive to park?
· Do you want to slowly undermine a key visitor serving industry in South Carlsbad by not
providing a significant and true and meaningful Coastal Park in South Carlsbad?
· Do you want tax-payers to pay tens of millions more to try to maybe try to make a few narrow
portions of PCH median useable to people?
Please take responsibility and full ownership of your decisions on these important issues and
questions. The individual decisions you make will likely be the last ones made. Once vacant land like
at Ponto is developed it will be forever lost to address the critical, well documented Park and Coastal
Park needs at Ponto as overwhelmingly communicated by Carlsbad Citizens and visitor businesses,
and other citizens.
Please be wise and think about the future your decisions will bring.
Thank you,
Lance Schulte
PS: The initial version of the “CTGMC key issues and Suggestions 2022-12-6” file (attached) sent to
you 8/8/22. The attached updated file should replace that older file as there is new data on
significant tax-payer cost savings from Pronto Park relative to PCH Relocation, and updated
examples of how Coastal Open Space can be cost-effectively persevered and increased. Both Coastal
Parks and Open Space are important Carlsbad and State of CA issues.
· Parks: Updated data shows that a 11.1 acre Ponto Park would now cost less $20 million to
buy and build. This is less than a City Pool Renovation. Carlsbad’s Old City Council planned
to spend $65 to $80 million in Carlsbad tax-payer dollars to address the Citywide need for a
significant Coastal Park in South Carlsbad with a 2.3 mile PCH Relocation. The City identified
in 2001 other pay-payer funds were highly unlikely. $65 to $80 million would only ‘free-up’
15.8 acres of narrow PCH Median (City documented “Surplus Land Area #4 & #5”). As
People for Ponto Citizens have been saying for years that Ponto Park is the better Park
solution to the documented Coastal South Carlsbad Park needs – a citywide need. The
CTGMC should include that citywide Park need and the logical, better and tax-payer
responsible Ponto Park solution to that citywide Park need in your CTGMC recommendations
to City Council.
· Open Space: Updated data shows how documented GM Open Space shortfalls can be
properly and responsibly address in a collaborative citizen-based “Local Facilities Zone
Useable Open Space Correction Plan” approached. Also the need to maintain the 15% GM
(Useable) Open Space Standard will be critical in the future to maintain Open Space and
prevent future conversion of Open Space to residential land use as part of Housing Plan
updates.
For the CTGMC; Parks and Open Space are the 2 most critical/special of 6 Key Growth Management
Program Update Issues and Suggestions the CTGMC should take to properly address these 6 key
Growth Management Issues.
• Please read the Updated data and Suggestions.
• Please responsibly address the Growth Management issues of a citywide Park need
for Coastal South Carlsbad as listed in the attached Suggestions. Include a South
Carlsbad Coastal Park in your recommendations to the City Council. Acknowledge
Ponto Park as the best and most tax-payer efficient solution to address that
documented citywide park need.
• Please in your recommendations to City Council retain and enforce the Open Space
Standard, and fix past errors made in falsely exempting certain developers in certain
areas in the City from complying with the Growth Management Open Space
Standard that other developers in other areas are required to provide.
Please consider this email and attachments, and know P4P Carlsbad Citizens are here to help assure
we sustain and enhance our quality of life for future generations. People for Ponto love deeply
Carlsbad and want to assure we leave a better Carlsbad to future generations.
Happy holidays and with Aloha Aina,
Lance Schulte
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Jennifer Jesser
From:Lance Schulte <meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2023 9:11 AM
To:Growth Management Committee; Michele Hardy; Council Internet Email; City Clerk; Kyle Lancaster;
Eric Lardy; 'Smith, Darren@Parks'; 'Homer, Sean@Parks'; 'Moran, Gina@Parks'; Boyle, Carrie@Coastal;
'Prahler, Erin@Coastal'; 'Ross, Toni@Coastal'
Cc:info@peopleforponto.com
Subject:Public input to the 2-26-23 Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, and upcoming
Carlsbad City Council and Parks and Planning Commissions - LCPA and Growth Management-Parks
Master Plan Updates - Parks & Open Space
Attachments:History of Open Space at Ponto - 2022-1-26.pdf; CTGMC key issues and suggestions -2022-12-6.pdf
Dear Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Carlsbad City Council, Parks and Planning Commissions, , CA
Coastal Commission and CA State Parks:
As the City has requested specific reference regarding public input, I ask you to please deliver to the those address this
email and attachment as public input for:
1. the CTGMC’s 2/26/23 meeting,
2. the next Carlsbad Council meeting,
3. the next Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commission meetings on the Parks Master Plan and Growth Management
Program Updates, Ponto Planning Area F and Site 18 land use changes, and Local Coastal Program Amendments,
and
4. as public input to the CCC on Carlsbad proposed Local Coastal Program, and
5. as public input to Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment.
In reading through the 2/26/23 staff report and attachments to CTGMC on Open Space, the staff report did not include
the attached data, like it included data from Mike Howes. Mike and I worked together at the City of Carlsbad at that
time so have comparable knowledge, that I documented and shared in the attached files. This data should be presented
just as Mike’s information was presented.
Also, there are a few omissions in the staff report regarding Open Space in LFMP Zone 9 (BLEP MP that was never built)
and relative to LFMP Zone 19 (Aviara Master Plan) in that both Zone 9 & 19 were about the same in terms of planning
process in 1986 and in fact the 1986 Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.030(g) identifies both BLEP MP and Aviara
MP as being exempt from the building permit moratorium. But Zone 19 the Aviara MP was required to provide 15% of
Growth Management Open Space and Zone 9 the BLEP was NOT Required (aka exempted) from providing the required
15% GM Open Space. In 1996 developers and the City deleted/removed BLEP MP Open Space and replaced it with
residential land use. But the ‘GM Open Space exemption’ was specifically only based on the BLEP MP land uses. Even
though most of the Public Input to the CTGMC has been about Ponto Park and Open Space needs these critical Open
Space facts were never discussed in the staff report, even though the documented evidence was provided to the City a
month ago.
Ponto (LFMP Zone 9) developers were/are clearly falsely exempted from providing the required 15% GM Open Space,
and the extensive Carlsbad Citizen outcry and petitions reflect this false exemption, that needs correction by the CTGMC
and City Council. The facts on the ground, the City’s Open Space maps, Parks Master Plan service area maps, the
attached data all point to fact that Ponto is missing the 15% GM Open Space that the City should have required and
provided. The impacts to current and future Carlsbad Citizens of this missing GM Open Space are real and will get worse
as Carlsbad’s population is required to increase. The CTGMC and City Council can fix this past mistake (as clearly
documented in the attached ‘History of Open Space at Ponto’) and as outlined in the attached ‘CTGMC key issues and
suggestions’ file. We can fix this and provide a fair Carlsbad Tomorrow.
2
Please care. Don’t cover‐up past mistakes. Do what is right and honest. Please work with your fellow citizens and
acknowledge and fix the past Growth Management Open Space mistakes at Ponto, and also provide a much needed
meaningful Ponto Park for South Carlsbad.
Thank you,
Lance Schulte
From: Lance Schulte [mailto:meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:39 PM
To: 'committee@carlsbadca.gov'; 'Michele Hardy'; 'council@carlsbadca.gov'; 'City Clerk'; 'Kyle Lancaster'; 'Eric Lardy';
'Smith, Darren@Parks'; 'Homer, Sean@Parks'; 'Moran, Gina@Parks'; 'Carrie Boyle'; 'Prahler, Erin@Coastal'; 'Ross,
Toni@Coastal'; 'melanie@melanieforcarlsbad.com'
Cc: 'info@peopleforponto.com'
Subject: Public input to the 1-16-22 Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, and upcoming Carlsbad City
Council and Parks and Planning Commissions - LCPA and Growth Management-Parks Master Plan Updates - Parks & Open
Space
Dear Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Carlsbad City Council, Parks and Planning Commissions, , CA
Coastal Commission and CA State Parks:
As the City has requested specific reference regarding public input, I ask you to please deliver to the those address this
email and attachment as public input for:
1. the CTGMC’s 1/26/22 meeting,
2. the next Carlsbad Council meeting,
3. the next Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commission meetings on the Parks Master Plan and Growth Management
Program Updates, Ponto Planning Area F and Site 18 land use changes, and Local Coastal Program Amendments,
and
4. as public input to the CCC on Carlsbad proposed Local Coastal Program, and
5. as public input to Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment.
At the 1‐11‐22 CTGMC meeting questions logically arouse about how Ponto/LFMP‐9 was falsely exempted from the
Growth Management Open Space Standards in 1986 when the two adopted reasons for that exemption were not true
per the City’s Open Space map/data base, air‐photos and development records, and the requirements of the Growth
Management Ordnance and Open Space Standard. People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens have been bringing this up to the
City since 2017 when we first had City data that showed the GM Open Space Standard exemption was
incorrect. Attached is some more detailed data that provides a History of Open Space at Ponto – 2022‐1‐26. There are
more details and interesting bits of information, but the attached provides the basics on the History and also offers
some critical historical context for the CTGMC, Carlsbad Commissions, City Council and Carlsbad Citizens to consider. I
hope this is helpful.
The History of Ponto Open Space and historical context fits into the ‘CTGMP Key Issues and Suggestions – 2022‐12‐6’ file
and email to you on 8/8/22 and 12/13/22 that provides a time‐tested, logical, legal, tax‐payer saving approach to
dealing with the missing Ponto Open Space and need for a significant Coastal Park at Ponto to serve Ponto and South
Carlsbad and relieve Coastal Park pressures on North Carlsbad.
Please know People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens deeply care and love Carlsbad. We bring the data and requests to you
because we care. You have received well over 5,000 People for Ponto petitions regarding Ponto Park and Open
Space. During the CTGMC meetings many have spoken and summited in favor of the issues identified in the People for
Ponto petitions. I may have missed it but do not recall any Carlsbad citizen speak/submit to the CTGMC in opposition to
3
what People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens have provided you. As representative of the Citizens of Carlsbad we ask you
honestly represent the Carlsbad Citizen desires so overwhelming expressed to you.
Thank you, and with Aloha Aina for Carlsbad,
Lance
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
Page 1 of 20
History of the false exemption of the Growth Management Open Space Standard provided Ponto
developers in Local Facility Management Plan Zone 9 (LFMP-9):
The history of how required Growth Management Open Space (i.e. unconstrained/developable land)
that should have been dedicated Open Space was, and is now being proposed to be, inappropriately
converted to Residential land use by a Perpetuating a False Exemption of the Open Space Standard
provided Ponto Developers. This False Exemption needs correction and restitution. Ponto’s False
Exemption of the Open Space Standard and the ‘amendment shell-game’ GM Open Space history is a
critical warning sign to the Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Planning Commission
and City Council. Ponto is a critical warning that a strong, accountable and accurate Open Space
Standard needs to be established for Carlsbad Tomorrow, AND a Growth Management Open Space
restitution plan needs to be established and funded that corrects the False Exemption for Ponto
Developers. If Ponto Developers were required like other similar developers at the time (Aviara and
Poinsettia Shores, “urbanizing La Costa Zones 11 & 12, etc.) to provide the required Growth
Management Open Space some of the critical Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park issues and extensive
Carlsbad Citizen needs/demands/desires at Ponto could likely have already been addressed.
How citizens found out about the False Exemption provided Ponto Developers:
In 2017 for the 1st time the city provided the GIS maps/data base accounting of Open Space in the City.
The City did this a part of settlement to a North County Advocates citizens’ lawsuit. The City Open Space
maps/data base allowed Carlsbad Citizens for the 1st time the ability to see and confirm what Open
Space was produced by Growth Management (GM). The City’s Open Space map/data based for Ponto
(LFMP-9) documented that about 30-acres of GM Open Space was missing (see; Carlsbad Official Public
Records Request - PRR 2017-164). As required by GM, and as Staff has said, to count as GM Open Space
it must be dedicated and ‘unconstrained/developable land’ to meet the GM Open Space Standard.
Being able to see for the 1st time the missing GM Open Space was one of the key awakenings that
started People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens. Below is the City’s Open Space Map for LFMP-9, with notes.
We have the City’s parcel-based Open Space data base that confirms all the numerical data in the notes.
Page 2 of 20
City GIS map of Ponto’s (LFMP Zone 9)
Open Space:
Light green areas meet the City’s 15%
unconstrained Growth Management
Program Open Space Standard
Most Ponto Open Space (pink hatch &
blue [water] on map) is “Constrained”
and does not meet the Standard
Aviara - Zone 19, Ponto - Zone 9 and
Hanover/Poinsettia Shores – Zone 22
all developed around the same time
and had similar vacant lands.
City required Aviara - Zone 19 east of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto? Aviara
had the same lagoon waters.
City required Hanover & Poinsettia
Shores area Zone 22 just north of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto?
Why Ponto developers were never
required to comply with the 15%
Standard Open Space is subject to
current litigation
Below is City GIS data from this map
City GIS map data summary of the 15% Growth Management Standard Open Space at Ponto
472 Acres Total land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
(197 Acres) Constrained land excluded from GMP Open Space
275 Acres Unconstrained land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
X 15% GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space requirement
41 Acres GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space required
(11 Acres) GMP Open Space provided & mapped per City GIS data
30 Acres Missing Unconstrained Open Space needed in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] to meet the City’s
minimum GMP Open Space Standard per City’s GIS map & data
73% of the City’s minimum 15% required Open Space Standard is missing due to over
development of LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
• j ••-.•~•I ; , .... ~ ..
0 ••
·-···
Q)l:ltl$~C~ 0Patt(f$
~ 1~PreseM11cno1H.111nfl-c:J Lf'MZ980unclt't
O :t•WOO<J'~ c:Jcc,ens.,_~
0
MlliJs
g ,-~~ .•;;·';.,.-.-::~.;•.-' .....
N
A
O ,oo 200 300 .4(1(1
Page 3 of 20
So were did the missing GM Open Space go?
In early 1985 prior to the Ponto’s developer (SAMMIS) annexing Ponto into the City of Carlsbad, San
Diego County’s LAFCO (local agency formation commission) General Planned and pre-zoned, Ponto’s
Batiquitos Lagoon waters and the lagoon bluff slopes as Open Space. This Open Space was “Constrained
Open Space” – State jurisdictional waters, and steep slopes with Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat. These
already pre-zoned constrained/non-developable Open Spaces were accounted for as part of the City’s
25% pre-Growth Management Plan Open Space, and per Growth Management can’t be counted in
meeting the 15% Growth Management Open Space Standard. The pre-zoned Open Space is shown in
the City’s Open Space map and properly marked as “Preservation of Natural Resources” Open Space
land. This already pre-zoned Constrained (non-developable, aka ‘Preservation of Natural Resources’)
Open Space land at Ponto was documented in the proposed SAMMIS Batiquitos Lagoon Educational
Park (BLEP) Master Plan MP-175 as Areas N, O, and P in the Land Use Summary below.
On Oct, 1 1985 Carlsbad approved SAMIS’s Master Plan and EIR to develop Ponto. SAMIS’s BLEP Master
Plan MP-175. Following are BLEP MP-175’s General Plan & Land Use Summary maps:
GENERAL PLAN
TS/C
TRAVEL SERVICE COMNERCIAL
22.6 AC
BATIOUITOS LAGOON EDUCATIONAL PARK
: SAMMIS PROPERTIES
EXHIBIT 1-C
Page 4 of 20
The BLEP MP-175 did include a variety of GM compliant Open Space.
12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use that was playfields and Coastal Recreation site for
MP-175 and South Carlsbad. This is a Critical GM Open Space that was never dedicated.
A minimum 30’ wide landscaped Open Space on both sides of Windrose Circle that circled the
Area P. Windrose Circle was bordered on each side by 30’ of landscaped Open Space.
Additional minimum 30’ wide landscaped setbacks between buildings in Area A
2.8 acres of private recreation open space for the maximum amount of residential units
45’ to 50’ landscaped setbacks from the Batiquitos Lagoon Bluff edge (this was later developed
with Residential land use in some areas of Ponto).
75’ landscaped separation between Areas C and D
70’ landscaped separation between Areas D and E
25’ landscaped setback along Avenida Encinas for Area E
30’ to 80’ landscape setback between Lakeshore Gardens and Area F
25’ landscaped setback along Avenida Encinas for Area F
50’ landscaped setback between Areas F and I
75’ landscaped separation between Areas G and H
50’ to 80’ landscape setback for Area I between Lakeshore Gardens and between Area F
• • , _, _r,;,;Y; : :,. ,· .. t~:.;,~•.:c:,w
•• ' 7 _. -·. ~ .
• ;•-:~,..-;•• ~---... ~ •-w
, -'0...A-.. :--....___ .
_ .. -. -~--. ....__,_ ·,··· ..
. -'.~ .... ' .......
~~if~~a?:;Y.2;;w::~/::~~~,.:::·~:-,
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN
CONCEPTUAL
LANO USE SUMMARY ~-.i:~
7,100
•l 1J.OI 1~1
-\t I .,.. I •"°°°I 4,,l I
tl
~~~l~l:'IT():p:~~N EDUCATIONAL PARK=~:~~
~-':\~M1~ ~~:::: :~m:m~ :' : ~ # u&~: .,,••••••••••••R ••••••••••••••••••••• --
EXHISIT 111-B
Page 5 of 20
So, prior to Ponto being annexed into the City of Carlsbad in the mid-1980’s and prior to Growth
Management the Batiquitos Lagoon and lagoons bluff slopes (constrained and unusable due to habitat
and slope constraints) were already pre-zoned Open Space and General Planned as Constrained Habitat
Open Space. This constrained Open Space did not and cannot meet the 15% GM Open Space Standard.
In 1986 Citizens voted for the City’s version of Growth Management that included at New Standard for
Useable Open Space. The new standard was that 15% of all unconstrained useable/developable land
within a Local Facility Management Zone was to be dedicated as Open Space. Once the vote was in the
City adopted the Growth Management Ordinance 21.90 of Carlsbad’s Municipal Code (City Council
Ordinance No. 9791. (Ord. 9829 § 1, 1987; Ord. 9808 § 1, 1986)).
In adopting the Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.010 the Council Clearly stated:
(b) The city council of the city has determined despite previous city council actions, including
but not limited to, amendments to the land use, housing, and parks and recreation elements of
the general plan, amendments to city council Policy No. 17, adoption of traffic impact fees, and
modification of park dedication and improvement requirements, that the demand for facilities
and improvements has outpaced the supply resulting in shortages in public facilities and
improvements, including, but not limited to, streets, parks, open space, schools, libraries,
drainage facilities and general governmental facilities. The city council has further determined
that these shortages are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Carlsbad.
(c) This chapter is adopted to ensure the implementation of the policies stated in subsection
(a), to eliminate the shortages identified in subsection (b), to ensure that no development
occurs without providing for adequate facilities and improvements, …”
The Citizens and Council recognized that prior City plans were not adequate to address the current (and
future) needs for facilities. Upon adoption of the New Growth Management Standards certain facilities
were already below-Standard simply based on the existing development and population. Growth
Management required additional facilities simply to bring the then current development/population up
to the New Minimum Standards. I am personally familiar with 3 GM Standards in LFMP-6 (old La Costa)
that I worked on – Library, Fire, and Park where already below-Standard i.e. existing
development/population in Old La Costa required more facilities to meet the new Growth Management
Standards. We worked to provide these new facilities for the existing development/population (i.e. fix
the Standard deficits) and then to also plan even more additional facilities at a ratio that met the New
Standards for the additional future development in Old La Costa. I can provide you some interesting
stories on that.
I also recall working on the surrounding La Costa LRMP Zones 11 & 12 that Like Ponto/FMP-9 were
considered “Cat II: Urbanizing” yet Unlike Ponto/LFMP-9 LFMP Zone 11 & 12 were not falsely exempted
Page 6 of 20
for the GMP Open Space Standard and had to provide the GM Open Space Standard of 15% of the
unconstrained/developable lands as dedicated Useable Open Space.
The Citizens vote on Proposition E and the subsequent Growth Management Ordinance 21.90 are the
rules on which the Growth Management Plans (both Citywide and 25 Local Facility Plans) are required to
follow.
To create the Citywide and the Local plans (Zones 1-6) for the largely developed areas the City needed
to temporarily pause development activity to allow time for city staff to Draft the Growth Management
Plan (my work as a city planner at the time was re-directed to draft growth management plans). So the
Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.030, established a Temporary Development Moratorium to
pause development processing activity while the Growth Management Plan was being Drafted.
Following is that language of 21.90.030. Notes are shown as italicized text within [example]:
“21.90.030 General prohibition—Exceptions.
(a) Unless exempted by the provisions of this chapter, no application for any building
permit or development permit shall be accepted, processed or approved until a city-wide
facilities and improvements plan has been adopted and a local facilities management plan for
the applicable local facilities management zone has been submitted and approved according
to this chapter. [Clearly indicates the exemptions in 21.90.030 are only from the temporary
development moratorium created by 21.90.]
(b) No zone change, general plan amendment, master plan amendment or specific plan
amendment which would increase the residential density or development intensity established
by the general plan in effect on the effective date of this chapter shall be approved unless an
amendment to the citywide facilities management plan and the applicable local facilities
management plan has first been approved. [FYI, this provision of 21.90.030 has direct
implications with respect of currently City/developer proposed General Plan/Zoning
code/Local Coastal Program Amendments now being pursued by the City at Ponto Planning
Area F and Ponto Site 18. The City did not and has not yet amended the CFMP and LFMP-9 to
increase the City/developer proposed residential density or development intensity at Ponto]
(c) The classes of projects or permits listed in this subsection shall be exempt from the
provisions of subsection (a). Development permits and building permits for these projects
shall be subject to any fees established pursuant to the city-wide facilities and improvement
plan and any applicable local facilities management plan. [Then lists various exemptions from
the temporary development processing/building permit moratorium in 21.90. The BLEP MP’s
exemption from the temporary moratorium is (g)]
(g) The city council may authorize the processing of and decision making on building
permits and development permits for a project with a master plan approved before July 20,
1986, subject to the following restrictions [this only applies to the “approved before July 20,
1986” BLEP MP, and NOT to any subsequent Master Plan Amendment]:
Page 7 of 20
(1) The city council finds that the facilities and improvements required by the master plan
are sufficient to meet the needs created by the project and that the master plan developer
has agreed to install those facilities and improvements to the satisfaction of the city council.
[The Ponto developer needed to provide the 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use and
install the GM compliant Open Space required in the 1986 MP175 but did not]
(2) The master plan developer shall agree in writing that all facilities and improvement
requirements, including, but not limited to, the payment of fees established by the city-wide
facilities and management plan and the applicable local facilities management plan shall be
applicable to development within the master plan area and that the master plan developer
shall comply with those plans. [this required the LFMP-9/BLEP MP to have 1) already been
fully developed or 2) have already have dedicated 15% of the LFMP-9 as Growth Management
compliant Open Space (i.e. Unconstrained and developable) to qualify for the Open Space
exemption later falsely noted in the city-wide facilities and management plan. As clearly
documented the BLEP MP did not meet the requirements to qualify for Open Space Standard
Exemption in the city-wide facilities and management plan. The section also requires “all
facilities” (including Open Space) requirements in the Citywide Growth Management Standard
to apply to BLEP MP, not provide a means for a false exemption of the Open Space Standard]
(3) The master plan establishes an educational park and all uses within the park comprise
an integral part of the educational facility. [“all uses” including the 12.8 acre Recreation
Commercial land use and all the other GM compliant Open Spaces are an integral part.
However the 12.8 acre open space land use was never built and the BLEP MP GM compliant
Open Space never dedicated.]
(4) Building permits for the one hundred twenty-nine [129] unit residential portion of
Phase I of the project may be approved provided the applicant has provided written evidence
that an educational entity will occupy Phase I of the project which the city council finds is
satisfactory and consistent with the goals and intent of the approved master plan. [Clearly
indicates the 21.90.030 exemption is only for building permits for Phase I of the BLEP MP. Of the
129 units only the 75 unit Rosalena development applied for and received building permits under
this exemption. There are some very interesting issues related to this Rosalena Phase I
development relative to GM complaint Open Space along the bluff edge that can be expanded on
later if the CTGMC has questions.]
(5) Prior to the approval of the final map for Phase I the master plan developer shall have
agreed to participate in the restoration of a significant lagoon and wetland resource area and
made any dedications of property necessary to accomplish the restoration. [Again clearly notes
the exemption only allows a final map for Phase I to be processed. The “lagoon and wetland
resource area” are part of the same constrained/undevelopable lands already pre-zoned prior
to the BLEP MP being incorporated into the City of Carlsbad]”
Page 8 of 20
The Aviara Master Plan (directly adjacent and east of Ponto) and was also being developed at the same
time as Ponto/BLEP MP. 21.90.030 also provided the Aviara Master Plan a similar exemption (h) and
similar lagoon related quid-pro-quo for that exemption. But Aviara did not receive a GM Open Space
Standard Exemption. :
“(iv) Prior to any processing on the [Aviara] master plan the applicant shall grant an easement
over the property necessary for the lagoon restoration and the right-of-way necessary for the
widening of La Costa Avenue and its intersection with El Camino Real. (Ord. NS-63 § 1, 1989;
Ord. 9837 § 1, 1987; Ord. 9808 § 1, 1986)”
Some City staff have incorrectly stated to the City Council that they believe 21.90.030 exempts
Ponto/LFMP-9 from the Growth Management Ordinance/Program or Growth Management Open Space
Standard. RESOLUTION NO. 8666- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING TWO AGREEMENTS FOR BATIQUITOS LAGOON EDUCATIONAL PARK also shows
the 21.90.030 exemption was only for development permits during the temporary building moratorium.
In 1986 the City falsely exempted in the Citywide Facilities Plan all Ponto developers from providing 15%
of their useable/developable land as GM required Open Space. The City’s documented/adopted rational
in the Citywide Plan was that Ponto/LFMP-9 was 1) in 1986 already developed, or 2) in 1986 the
developer had already met the GM Open Space Standard by having already dedicated 15% of the
useable land as Open Space. Both situations were/are false. Any air photo map or even the 1986 LFMP-
9 clearly states Ponto was NOT developed in 1986, as only the Lakeshore Gardens existed and the
Ralphs Center was just starting construction. Also the City’s GIS Open Space mapping (see above) shows
that SAMMIS the Ponto developer (BLEP Master Plan MP-175) in 1986 had Not dedicated as Open Space
15% of the useable land as Growth Management compliant Open Space as shown/described in the BLEP
MP (i.e. the 12.8 Acre Recreation Commercial site and all the landscaped open space setbacks required
in the BLEP MP-175. If that 15% was dedicated in 1986 it would show-up on the City’s inventory of
Dedicated Open Space now. So how did this occur?
How Ponto’s planned GM Open Space was eliminated and replaced with Residential land use:
In late 1980’s SAMMIS the BLEP MP-175 developer started building the 75-home Rosalena Development
as the first part of Phase I of the BLEP MP. The City (based on my recollection was very desirous to
develop the BLEP MP) and required special time limits on the BLEP MP to actually advance building the
‘Educational Park’ with all the “initiated” land uses (including GM compliant Open Space) within a
certain period of time. SAMIS was having financial issues and difficulty delivering the BLEP MP land
uses. Amendments (A, B, and C) to BLEP MP reflected on these difficulties:
MP 175(A) to allow minor accessory structures within the rear yards of all Phase I single family
lots located in Planning Area “C”. [This is the Rosalena development that was part of Phase I for
BLEP MP. This amendment has implications on the landscaped Open Space setback along the
Batiquitos Lagoon bluff top, and the required Coastal access trail required by the Coastal
Page 9 of 20
Development Permit for Rosalena. This is an interesting history that can be explained later if the
CTGMC would like.]
MP 175(B) to realign Carlsbad Blvd., between North Batiquitos Lagoon and west of I-5 to
accommodate the Sammis Development was WITHDRAWN January 12, 1990, and
MP 175(C) a request for 5-year extension of time for Master Plan approval related to
educational uses on this project was Approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 2841, April
19, 1989 and approved City Council Ordinance No. NS-83, September 5, 1990.
SAMMIS went bankrupt around 1990 and Kaiza Development purchased the BLEP MP. Kaiza completed
the Rosalena development started by SAMMIS. Kaiza then sought to completely change the planned
land uses on all the remaining unconstrained/developable land in the BLEP MP.
General Plan and Master Plan Amendments eliminated/reduced BLEP’s Growth Management compliant
Open Space and replace with Residential uses in the “amended” Poinsettia Shores Master Plan:
When Kaiza acquired the BLEP MP-175 and its vacant land only the State Campground, Lakeshore
Gardens, Ralphs Center, and now Rosalena were approved/existing developments at Ponto. Kaiza
proposed a Master Plan Amendment to delete the BLEP MP-175 and all its developable land uses,
except for the only portion of Phase I developed – the 75 unit Rosalena subdivision. The pre-BLEP MP
pre-zoned (and General Planned) constrained/undevelopable Lagoon waters and lagoon bluff Open
Spaces and the CA Coastal Act (LCP) required bluff top setbacks were the only Open Spaces retained in
Kaiza’s proposed General Plan land use and Master Plan Amendments.
Most all of the BLEP MP-175 (and Ponto/LFMP-9) land area was still undeveloped at the time Kaiza
proposed changing all the General Plan land uses at Ponto and eliminating the usable Open Space in
BLEP MP.
Kaiza’s General Plan land use and Master Plan ‘Amendments’ made radical land use changes that
converted some critical Useable GM Open Space to residential land use and also reduced some GM
Open Space provided in BLEP MP. Following is Kaiza’s Amended General Plan land use map and bullet
summary of the major Open Space changes without getting into a very detailed forensic analysis:
Eliminated the 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use.
Eliminated the minimum 30’ wide landscaped Open Space on both sides of Windrose Circle for
the large unbuilt portions of Windrose Circle
Reduced by 10’ the landscaped Open Space on the smaller built portion of Windrose Circle
Eliminated on 40.3 acres the additional minimum 30’ wide landscaped setbacks between
buildings
Reduced BLEP’s 2.8 acres of private recreation open space to 2.3 acres
Except for the Rosalena (BLEP Area C) and (PSMP Area J), maintained the 45’ to 50’ landscaped
setbacks from the Batiquitos Lagoon Bluff edge
Eliminated the 75’ landscaped separation between BLEP MP Areas C and D
Page 10 of 20
Eliminated the 70’ landscaped separation between BLEP MP Areas D and E
Maintained the 25’ landscaped setback along Avenida Encinas. [However new Master Plan
Amendments MP-175L propose reducing the setback to 10’ on the undeveloped frontage of
Avenida between PCH and the railroad tracks]
Placed a road in most of the 80’ landscape setback between Lakeshore Gardens
Eliminated the 50’ landscaped setback between BLEP MP Areas F and I
Eliminated the 75’ landscaped separation between BLEP MP Areas G and H
Added a 20’ wide by 1,000’ long landscaped strip for an HOA trail
Kaiza’s Master Plan Amendment MP 175 (D) eliminated the 12.8 acre Open Space land use (with an
associated General Plan Amendment to add more residential land use) and reduced the other useable
Open Spaces required in the BLEP MP. When the 1994 Kaiza MP 175 (D) General Plan Amendments
were proposed, it seemed they voided the ‘1986 GM Open Space exemption’ that was clearly specific
only to the 1986 BLEP MP land uses and regulation. Although this was a false exempted, the exemption
only applied to the complete/integrated land use and open space provided in the 1986 BLEP MP. The
1986 exemption specific to BLEP MP could not apply to a different and later 1994 General Plan land use
plan that eliminated the 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial (Open Space) site to add residential land use
Al'PROA.
GROSS AC.
9.8
13.5
10.2
14.7
20.9
2.9
11.2
4.4
0.9
11 .3
8.4
3.7
11.9
13.8
18.3
4.6
2.3
Page 11 of 20
and that also reduced the GM compliant Open Space provided in the 1986 BLEP MP. 21.90.030(b) notes
that:
“(b) No zone change, general plan amendment, master plan amendment or specific plan
amendment which would increase the residential density or development intensity established by
the general plan in effect on the effective date of this chapter shall be approved unless an
amendment to the citywide facilities management plan and the applicable local facilities
management plan has first been approved.”
The 1994 Kaiza General Plan land use and Master Plan (MP 175(D)) Amendments removed 12.8 acres of
Recreation Commercial (GM compliant Open Space) to add residential land use. This violated
21.90.030(b) by doing so without a first providing a Citywide Facilities Plan Amendment that analyzed
the actual amount of GM compliant Open Space being proposed in the 1994 Kaiza MP 175(D) relative to
the 1986 BLEP MP on which the 1986 GM Open Space exemption for LFMP-9 was based. MP 175(D) is
noted in the MP as follows:
“MP 175 (D) Kaiza Poinsettia Master Plan To replace educational uses with residential land uses
And rename to Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (was) Approved Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3552, November 3, 1993, Approved City Council Ordinance No. NS-266, January 18, 1994.”
Kaiza’s MP 175(D) inaccurately and bizarrely claimed BLEP MP’s prior false exemption from the GM
Open Space Standard as the justification that Kaiza’s new 1994 Open Space land use changes that seem
to reduce the amount of GM complaint Open Space in the 1986 BLEP MP are also exempt from the GM
Open Space Standard. Kaiza’s MP 175(D) claims the pre-Growth Management and pre-BLEP MP
Constrained/Undevelopable lagoon waters and bluff habitat that per the 15% Growth Management
Open Space Standard CAN NOT be counted as meeting the 15% GM Open Space Standard can be
magically counted as meeting the 15% GM Open Space Standard. The GM Open Space Standard
specifically states that only Unconstrained/Developable lands CAN BE counted as meeting the GM
Open Space Standard. The stated principles of Growth Management, the Growth Management
Ordnance 21.90 and the Growth Management Open Space Standard DO NOT allow a developer or the
City to count already documented Constrained and unbuildable habitat (and water) as Unconstrained
and developable land. You can’t just turn ‘an apple into a banana by saying it’, or turn
‘Constrained/Undevelopable land into Unconstrained/Developable land by just saying it.
Compliance with the law in this Open Space issue is a part of a current lawsuit by North County
Advocates a group of Citizens watchdogs. The City has unsuccessfully tried to diminish this lawsuit. A
judge/jury will determine the outcome.
Additional MP 175 Amendments have been proposed by and approved to further modify land use and
regulatory limitations at Ponto. These include:
MP 175(E) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, Redefinition of minor amendment to provide a
flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative and imaginative planning of coordinated
communities, WITHDRAWN November 1, 1994
Page 12 of 20
MP 175(F) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan minor amendment to actualize off-site option for
provision of 90 affordable housing dwelling units, Approved Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3774, April 19, 1995
MP 175(G) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan minor amendment to adopt Coastal Commission
Suggested modifications, Approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 3922, June 5, 1996
Approved City Council July 16, 1996, NS-367
MP 175(H) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan - major amendment FOR HOTEL AND TIMESHARE
USES, WITHDRAWN January 16, 2003
MP 175(I) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – Rosalena Trail Amendment, WITHDRAWN January
8, 2002
MP 175(J) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – major amendment for Carlsbad Coast Residential
project to allow RM land use on Poinsettia Shores, WITHDRAWN January 8, 2002
MP 175 (K) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – Ponto Area Specific Plan Mixed use consisting of
residential, commercial and retail uses, WITHDRAWN August 19, 2004
MP 175(L) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – Major amendment for commercial and residential
development on Planning Area F, Still being proposed by developers and being processed by
the City.
The false exemption for the BLEP MP based LFMP-9 should never have occurred. However,
completely eliminating BLEP MP’s OpenSpace land use (12.8 acre Recreation Commercial) and
reducing BLEP MP’s required Open Space while at the same time claiming the false BLEP MP Open
Space Exemption is a violation of common sense, 21.90, and the very founding principles Growth
Management.
The CA Coastal Commission in MP 175 (G) in part recognized the elimination of the 12.8 acre Recreation
Commercial land use and maybe some of the Open Space land use changes and added the following
land use regulations for 11.1 acre Planning Area F in the Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program LCP). The LCP
as per State Law and referenced in Carlsbad’s General Plan is the controlling land use regulation over the
General Plan, Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and in the Coastal Zone:
“PLANNING AREA F: Planning Area F is located at the far northwest corner of the Master Plan
area west of the AT&SF Railway right-of-way. This Planning Area has a gross area of 11 acres and
a net developable area of 10.7 acres. Planning Area F carries a Non-Residential Reserve (NRR)
General Plan designation. Planning Area F is an “unplanned” area, for which land uses will be
determined at a later date when more specific planning is carried out for areas west of the
railroad right-of-way. A future Major Master Plan Amendment will be required prior to further
development approvals for Planning Area F, and shall include an LCP Amendment with
associated environmental review, if determined necessary.
The intent of the NRR designation is not to limit the range of potential future uses entirely to
nonresidential, however, since the City's current general plan does not contain an “unplanned”
designation, NRR was determined to be appropriate at this time. In the future, if the Local
Coastal Program Amendment has not been processed, and the City develops an “unplanned”
Page 13 of 20
General Plan designation, then this site would likely be redesignated as “unplanned.” Future
uses could include, but are not limited to: commercial, residential, office, and other uses,
subject to future review and approval.
As part of any future planning effort, the City and Developer must consider and document the
need for the provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e.
public park) on the west side of the railroad.”
In 2010 the CA Coastal Commission in 2010 rejected the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan on which
MP 175(K) was based. MP 175(K) was withdrawn.
On July 3, 2017 the CA Coastal Commission provided direction to the City of Carlsbad regarding MP
175(G), Carlsbad’s 2015 General Plan Update, Carlsbad proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment
Land Use Plan (LUP) . CA Coastal Commission wrote to the City the following. Notes on the context of
communication are in bracketed italics [example]:
“The existing LUP includes policies that require certain visitor-serving developments and/or
studies relevant to the Ponto … area. For example, Planning Area F requires the city and
developer to "consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost visitor
accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e., public park) on the west side of the railroad. …
this study should be undertaken as a part of the visitor serving use inventory analysis described
above. [the discussion of the need for the City to conduct a citywide analysis of the location and
amount of these uses in the Coastal Zone to assure the City General Plan within the Coastal Zone
is providing the adequate amounts and locations of these land uses to fulfill the long-term
population/visitor needs for these uses according to the CA Coastal Act] If this analysis
determines that there is a deficit of low cost visitor accommodations or recreation facilities in
this area, then Planning Area F should be considered as a site where these types of uses could
be developed.”
In 2017 the City conducted the first Sea Level Rise (SLR) Vulnerability Assessment
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=33958 . That first initial analysis,
shows significant SLR impacts that will reduce existing Ponto Open Space - the State beach and
Campground and along the Batiquitos Lagoon. The City identified SLR impacts on Ponto Open Space are
summarized in the next section of this history.
In 2023 the CA Coastal Commission will consider the data and public input and decide the appropriate
land use for 11.1 acre Planning Area F based the CA Coastal Act and Coastal Act land use policies.
You can determine the Open Space and Park Quality of Life Standards that will be applied to this and
other future land uses.
City assessment of Sea Level Rise impacts on reducing Ponto Open Space
Page 14 of 20
The City’s 2017 SLR assessment shows SLR will significantly reduce or eliminate only existing Open Space
land at Ponto. The City’s assessment quantifies the speratic/episodic loss of Ponto/Coastal South
Carlsbad Open Space land and land uses being at the State Campground, Beaches, and Batiquitos
Lagoon shoreline – about 32 acres by the year 2100, this would be an average loss of 17,000 square feet
of Open Space per year. Following (within quotation marks) is a description, quantification and images
of the City’s projected loss of Ponto/Coastal South Carlsbad Open Space land and land use due to SLR.
[Italicized text within brackets] is added data based on review of aerial photo maps in the Assessment.
“Planning Zone 3 consists of the Southern Shoreline Planning Area and the Batiquitos Lagoon. Assets
within this zone are vulnerable to inundation, coastal flooding and bluff erosion in both planning
horizons (2050 and 2100). A summary of the vulnerability assessment rating is provided in Table 5. A
discussion of the vulnerability and risk assessment is also provided for each asset category.
5.3.1. Beaches
Approximately 14 acres of beach area is projected to be impacted by inundation/erosion in 2050. …
Beaches in this planning area are backed by unarmored coastal bluffs. Sand derived from the natural
erosion of the bluff as sea levels rise may be adequate to sustain beach widths, thus, beaches in this
reach were assumed to have a moderate adaptive capacity. The overall vulnerability rating for beaches
is moderate for 2050.
Vulnerability is rated moderate for the 2100 horizon due to the significant amount of erosion expected
as the beaches are squeezed between rising sea levels and bluffs. Assuming the bluffs are unarmored in
the future, sand derived from bluff erosion may sustain some level of beaches in this planning
area. A complete loss of beaches poses a high risk to the city as the natural barrier from storm waves is
lost as well as a reduction in beach access, recreation and the economic benefits the beaches provide.
5.3.3. State Parks
A majority of the South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds (separated into
four parcels) were determined to be exposed to bluff erosion by the 2050 sea level rise scenario
(moderate exposure). This resource is considered to have a high sensitivity since bluff erosion
could significantly impair usage of the facilities. Though economic impacts to the physical structures
within South Carlsbad State Beach would be relatively low, the loss of this park would be significant
since adequate space for the park to move inland is not available (low adaptive capacity). State
parks was assigned a high vulnerability in the 2050 planning horizon. State park facilities are recognized
as important assets to the city in terms of economic and recreation value as well as providing low-cost
visitor serving amenities. This vulnerability poses a high risk to coastal access, recreation, and
tourism opportunities in this planning area.
In 2100, bluff erosion of South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds become
more severe and the South Ponto State Beach day-use area becomes exposed to coastal flooding
during extreme events. The sensitivity of the South Ponto day-use area is low because impacts to usage
will be temporary and no major damage to facilities would be anticipated. Vulnerability and risk to State
Page 15 of 20
Parks remains high by 2100 due to the impacts to South Carlsbad State Beach in combination
with flooding impacts to South Ponto.
Table 5: Planning Zone 3 Vulnerability Assessment Summary [condensed & notated]:
Asset Horizon Vulnerability
Category [time] Hazard Type Impacted Assets Rating
Beaches 2050 Inundation/Erosion, Flooding 14 acres (erosion) Moderate
2100 Inundation/Erosion, Flooding 54 acres (erosion) Moderate
Public Access 2050 Inundation, Flooding 6 access points Moderate
4,791 feet of trails
2100 Inundation, Flooding 10 access points Moderate
14,049 feet of trails
State Parks 2050 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 4 parcels [<18 Acres] High
[Campground - 2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 4 parcels [>18 Acres] High
Low-cost Visitor [loss of over 50% of
Accommodations] the campground &
its Low-cost Visitor
Accommodations,
See Figure 5.]
Transportation 2050 Bluff Erosion 1,383 linear feet Moderate
(Road, Bike, 2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 11,280 linear feet High
Pedestrian)
Page 16 of 20
Environmentally 2050 Inundation, Flooding 572 acres Moderate
Sensitive 2100 Inundation, Flooding 606 acres High
Lands
O uwHW<t .,,...,,~c;........,,...,,
D 11~•\;ll)-<(.I>' Cb•
1,:::,1 .. ,
fi~re 7: Southern Shortfine PlanningArEa-Year 2050
Page 17 of 20
.i.,.,..,c .. ~ .... ..-.J:,
Cl"'c.-..,.,..:,or..C,:,-t::-=t
CCityof
Carlsbad
{a l lfo r nlu
EXHIBITB6
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
Figure 5: CoSMoS Bluff Erosion Projections by 2100
(CoSMoS-COPST 2015)
Page 18 of 20
[Figure 5 show the loss of over 50% of the campground and campground sites with a minimal .2 meter
Sea Level Rise (SLR), and potentially the entire campground (due to loss of access road) in 2 meter SLF.]”
This 2017 SLR data and quantified losses of Ponto/Coastal South Carlsbad Open Space land and land
uses was not considered in the City’s rejected (by CCC) Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The Ponto
Vision Plan is the basis for the City’s 2015 General Plan Update that is now being proposed in the City’s
Local Coastal Program Amendment now before the CA Coastal Commission.
Summary:
LFPM-9 was clearly not developed in 1986, and did not then or now dedicate 15% of the
unconstrained/developable land as Open Space as required by the Growth Management Open Space
Standard. These two reasons for the City to “exempt” LFMP-9 from Open Space Standard were/are
False. Saying Constrained/undevelopable land can be counted as Unconstrained/developable land is also
false and clearly not allowed according to the Growth Management Ordinance, Standards, principles,
and common-sense honesty to Carlsbad Citizens. LFMP-9, as the City’s own maps/data base show is
clearly missing 30-acres of GM Open Space. In addition in 2017 we learned that Ponto/Coastal South
Carlsbad will lose about 32 acres of existing Open Space due to SLF.
Closing thoughts:
Growth Management is based on the type/amount/location of General Plan land use designations, the
development potential of those land use designations in creating the demand for the
type/amount/location of facilities, and supply of the type/amount/distribution of facilities – like Open
Space and Parks. If the type/amount/location of supply of facilities does not meet the demand for those
facilities then growth management fails and Quality of Life is reduced.
Quality of Life Standards are used to assure supply and demand for facilities is properly balanced with
respect to type/amount/location.
Ponto is clearly unbalanced. The Ponto Census Track is at a 40% higher population density than the rest
of Carlsbad, yet is Ponto is NOT meeting the Open Space Standard and has NO Park (see City Open Space
maps and Park Master Plan). Ponto and all South Carlsbad have higher population demand for Parks
and Open Space facilities yet Ponto (that is the only place to provide Coastal Park and Open Space needs
for South Carlsbad) has lower or none of those two most critical GM Facilities needed to balance and
mitigate the 40% higher population density at Ponto and also the higher residential density in South
Carlsbad.
Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad also have additional State and regional responsibilities to provide
Coastal Recreation and Open Space for populations of people and visitors from outside of Ponto and
Carlsbad.
Page 19 of 20
This failure to honestly and adequately balance the type/amount/location higher population density by
providing higher levels of Parks and Open Space in those areas will lead to a slow and but eventual
reduction of the Quality of Life for those areas.
Common sense and the Carlsbad’s Growth Management law say if you change the land use (like what
was done and is still being proposed at Ponto) you change the type/amount/location of potential
development and population and the Growth Management impacts. Land use changes require and
honest/accurate/balanced update to Citywide and Local Growth Management Plans to accurately reflect
those changes and provide an updated plan to provide facilities that meet the Standards for those land
use changes. This is the fundamental heart of any Growth Management.
The Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, and City Commissions and Council are all
now facing the same issues and responsibility that we faced in the 1980’s at the beginning of Growth
Management. We established New Quality of Life Standards – for Open Space and Parks – that required
New investments in Parks and Open Space by both the City and developers.
Open Space and Parks have always been identified as most critical for Carlsbad’s quality of life. The
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, and City Commissions and Council, and Carlsbad
Citizens are all at a critical crossroad.
Do we, or don’t we, enforce and set new standards that achieve the quality of life we desire?
Do we or don’t we, fix existing past errors and below desired standard situations?
Do we or don’t we, roll-up our sleeves a work together to a better Quality of Life?
As a long-time Carlsbad Citizen I am extremely disappointed by some who say we can’t fulfill our
Community Vision, we can’t fix things, can’t make things better, and can’t add more Parks and Useable
Open Space. This can’t attitude is not out Community Vision. We can and we did before, and we can do
it again and better.
Great cities for hundreds of years have Upgraded their Quality of Life Facility Standards, made and
implemented/funded facilities to fix things up to those Standards. A City is just like a business or person
- If you don’t improve you decline. Examples of Upgrading and funding to New Parks and Open Space
are many but include – Carlsbad’s Buena Vista Reservoir Park, additions to Pine Park, Village H Park, and
Aura Circle Open Space acquisition; and SDSU’s major new Park at the redeveloped Qualcomm Stadium
site.
Now like at the beginning of Carlsbad Growth Management the City can “despite previous city council
actions” make improvements to its Growth Management and Quality of Life Standards to address past
and future needs. Following illustrates existing R-23 (up to 23 dwellings per acre) development in
Carlsbad – most of our future residential development will be required to be like this or more dense.
Page 20 of 20
High-density housing can be great, but it requires MORE Parks and MORE useable Open Space within
walking distance to balance the density and provide large places for families and kids to really play. In
Carlsbad’s high-density residential future with no backyards and stacked flat multi-family homes the
need for both more Parks and Useable Open Space is much greater than in 1980’s.
The time to fix the Parks and Useable Open Space problems at Ponto (LFMP-9) is now. Already Ponto is
developed at a density that is 40% great than the rest of Carlsbad. New proposed and even higher-
density developments (developer driven Amendments) propose to make Ponto even more dense, yet
there are not Parks at Ponto and Ponto is missing 30-acres of Useable Open Space past developers
should have provided.
A doable, time-tested, accountable, tax-payer saving, strongly citizen desired, accountable, and honest
way to fix this was presented to you in 8/8/22 and 12/27/22 emails with attached “CTGMP Key Issues
and Suggestions – 2022-12-6”. Over 5,000 petitions expressing the need to fix the Park and Open Space
problems at Ponto have been sent to the City and the City should have provided these to you in
considering Park and Open Space issues.
Ponto Park and Open Space needs your help fixing NOW. If not Carlsbad Tomorrow will be less than it is
today, and tragically will have failed our Community Vision.
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 1 of 9
CTGMC needed actions: 6 key issues and suggestions – from People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens
8/8/22 1st submittal, 12/12/22 updated 2nd submittal
Following are 6 key major Growth Management Standards issues of citywide relevance that the Carlsbad
Tomorrow Growth Management Committee (CTGMC) needs to act on, and citizen “Suggestions to
CTGMC” on how to honestly and responsibly act on these 6 key issues in the CTGMC’s recommendations
to the New City Council. This Update includes new information (pp 5-6) on the improved affordability of
Ponto Park, and on how GM Open Space shortfall can be repaired. We hope the CTGMC will act
honestly to make recommendations that truly and responsibly address known documented shortfalls in
both Parks and GM Open Space. Responsible recommendations by the CTGMC can provide a
sustainable Quality of Life to future Carlsbad generations and visitors. Only you own your
recommendations.
1. The State of CA is forcing Carlsbad and all cities/counties in CA to provide for unlimited or Infinite
Population and Visitor growth. So there will be an Infinite population & visitor demands for Parks,
Open Space, water, and demands on our roads/transportation systems, and other Growth
Management (GM) Quality of Life facilities. These infinite increases in population and visitor
demand will come from high density development that requires more public Parks and Open Space
to balance the high-densities. Carlsbad’s new GM Standards will have to provide for a system of
Infinite proportional increases in the supply of Parklands, Open Spaces, water, transportation
facility capacity, etc. or our Quality of Life will diminish.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
i. Completely restructure the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and GM Program to
clearly recognize these facts and State requirements to proportionately provide
public facilities to maintain/improve Carlsbad GM Quality of Life Standards for this
Infinite growth of Population and Visitor demands.
ii. Being a Coastal city Carlsbad has an added responsibility to proportionately
maintain/improve providing High-Priority Coastal land uses (Coastal Recreation
{i.e. Public Parks} and Low-cost Visitor Accommodations) needed at a regional and
statewide level to address visitor needs for Coastal Recreation, access, and
affordable accommodations. Carlsbad needs to work with the State of CA Coastal
Commission to completely restructure Carlsbad’s Coastal Land Use Plan to
addresses the State’s requirement to provide an Infinite amount high-priority
Coastal land uses for those Infinite Population and Visitor demands.
iii. Trying to ignore these Infinite demands for Carlsbad’s Quality of Life facilities –
like Parks and Open Spaces is a path to disaster and the ultimate degradation of
Carlsbad’s Quality of Life.
2. Carlsbad has a huge Jobs v. Housing supply imbalance – far too many jobs around the airport for
our amount of housing. This creates negative and costly land use and transportation planning
distortions that radiate from the Airport Central Jobs through Carlsbad in all directions. CA
Housing law penalizes umbalanced cities like Carlsbad by requiring more housing in Carlsbad to
bring jobs/housing ratio into balance. Carlsbad can correct this imbalance by 1 of 2 ways: 1) greatly
increase housing supply (and thus increase the need and City expense for more GM Quality of Life
facilities), or2) more logically and cost effectively greatly decrease the amount of Jobs land use, so
Carlsbad’s housing supply is in balance with jobs. These jobs will move to surrounding Cities that
have more housing than jobs. Rebalancing by reducing jobs land use creates added benefits for
Carlsbad and our region by reducing Carlsbad’s peak-hour job commute traffic volumes and
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 2 of 9
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and by reducing the costs Carlsbad (and other cities and the region)
have to pay to accommodate inter-city commute traffic. If Carlsbad reduces jobs land use will also
reduce the amount of housing the State of California and SANDAG requires Carlsbad provide in its
Housing Element thus reducing forcing incompatible high-density development into established
neighborhoods and pressure to convert useable GM Open Space lands to housing land use.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
i. Carlsbad can logically and cost effectively balance Jobs/housing supply by
updating Growth Management Policy to reduce jobs to be in balance with housing
by changing some of Carlsbad’s General Plan land use around the airport into
several high-density residential mixed-use Villages. The City has started some of
this, but can expand this effort but has not planned creating mixed-use village
environments. These high-density villages will reduce jobs and provide both high-
quality and high-density (affordable) housing within walking/biking distance to the
major job center and new neighborhood commercial and Park uses in the Villages.
ii. Prioritize transportation investments in safe bike paths, walking paths between
Carlsbad’s Central Jobs Core around the airport and Carlsbad’s housing, particularly
strongly connecting these new high-density mixed-use villages with the Central Jobs
Core.
iii. Update General Plan land use and housing policy to reduce concentrations of
higher-density housing except around the airport jobs core.
iv. Recognize the central Airport jobs core is ‘Carlsbad’s New Urban Downtown and
“Transect Plan” accordingly toward lower densities on the City periphery.
3. Although some very critical areas (such as the Coastal lands at Ponto) are still vacant and can be
wisely used for critical GM Quality of Life needs, much of Carlsbad is largely developed.
Redevelopment of developed land will require creating increased supplies of Parkland, Open
Spaces, transportation capacity, and other Quality of Life facilities.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
i. Completely rethink all City planning on existing vacant lands to assure that
remaining vacant land is planned and being used wisely and fairly distributed to
address critical Quality of Life needs in those areas, and not squandered on
redundant land use. The location of vacant land to address critical Park & Open
Space needs should be preserved with land use planning.
ii. Work with the State and CA Coastal Commission to preserve our Finite vacant
Coastal lands for High-Priority Coastal Land Uses (Coastal Recreation {i.e. Public
Parks} and Low-cost Visitor Accommodations and services) for the Infinite
population and visitor demands both internal and external to Carlsbad that are/will
be placed on them.
iii. Fully and at the very beginning of any Carlsbad General Plan, Local Coastal Program
and Growth Management Program actions going forward fully disclose, map and
require consideration of the impact of future sea level rise and coastal erosion on
Coastal land acres and land uses. Carlsbad has lost and will accelerate loosing acres
of Coastal land and High-priority Coastal Land Uses. Carlsbad must know, see, and
discuss these losses BEFORE making any land use decisions in Carlsbad’s Coastal
Zone and any vacant Coastal Land.
4. Carlsbad General Plan & Growth Management Plan do not provide a fair distribution of
adequately sized City Parks for all Carlsbad families. Veterans Park is a classic example. What will
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 3 of 9
be the City’s largest park is only about 1-mile away from three other major City Parks (Zone 5, and
the future Robinson Ranch and Hub Parks). This is a poor and unfair distribution and a misallocation
City Park land resources. Saying Veterans Park is ‘the park to serve SW, SE, and NE Carlsbad families’
(the overwhelming major/majority funders of veterans Park) when those families are upwards of 6-
miles away on major commercial arterials that kids can’t logically/safely use is false and unfair.
Most all the funding (developer fees) to build Veterans Park come from the SW, SE and NW Carlsbad
but those areas are denied the Park the paid for. Veterans Park is inaccessible by almost all its
intended users except by driving their cars and then storing their cars in parking lots on Parkland
thus making less park land available for actual park use – this makes little common sense and is a
great waste of tax-payer funds. This is dysfunctional along with being very unfair to families in SW,
SE and NE Quadrats that are denied park acres near their homes which they funded. Carlsbad’s
Park Master Plan maps ‘Park Service’ areas of existing known Park Inequity or Unfairness
(dysfunction), to show where new City Park investments should be made (See City map image
with notes below).
The Trust for Public Land provides a Park-Score to compare both a City’s amount of park acres and
the ‘fairness’ of access (within a 10-minute walk) to parks. Carlsbad is below national averages in
both park acres and fair access to parks. Carlsbad is also well below what our adjacent Coastal
cities of Encinitas and Oceanside provide. Carlsbad only requires 3 acres of Park land per 1,000
population, while Encinitas and Oceans require 5 acres - 67% more than Carlsbad – of parkland.
Also, Encinitas and Oceanside require parks to be within a 10-mintue walk to their citizens and
families. Carlsbad has no such requirement.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
No Coastal Park in South Carlsbad
• Appx. 6 miles of Coast
with out a Coastal Park is a
City & Reg ional need
• South Carlsbad has 64,000
residents & thousands of
hotel visitors without a
Coastal park
• Closest park to Ponto is
Poinsettia Park, approx. 2.5
miles across 1-5
• Proposed Veterans Park is
approx. 6 miles away
......... ,oc-.., '-'• ·-~ n.lo(&et~•~. _<,-., ___ .. -~~-......_ .... .,,..-c..-..,..._....,__ . _c.....,t-,.-___ .,.c-,,,.,,.
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 4 of 9
Carlsbad should change its General Plan, Parks and Growth Management Standards and
CMC 20.44 to:
i. Be Above Average Nationally in both providing park acreage and in locating
adequate park acreage to be within a 10-minute walk to all neighborhoods.
ii. Raise its minimum park acreage standard to 5 acers per 1,000 population, versus
the current low 3 acres per 1,000. Carlsbad should be at least as good as Encinitas
and Oceanside in requiring 5 acres, not 40% below what our adjacent Cities
require/provide.
iii. Raise its park location standard to require an adequately sized park be provided to
serve the neighborhood population within a 10-minute walk for all
neighborhoods.
iv. Prioritize City Policy and Park Budgets and investments to achieve park fairness in
‘Park Unserved areas’ identified by Carlsbad’s Park Master Plan.
v. Per Carlsbad’s Municipal Code Chapter 20.44- DEDICATION OF LAND FOR
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES to require developers in ‘Park Unserved areas’ and in
areas that do not have an adequately sized (5 acres per 1,000 population) park
within a 10-minute walk to provide their developments required Park land acre
dedication in actual Park land within a 10-minute walk to their development.
vi. Update the City’s Park-in-lieu fee to assure the fee is adequate to actually buy the
amount of park land a developer is to provide within a 10-miunte walk of their
development. The City’s current ‘Park-in-lieu-fee’ is far too low and inadequate to
actually buy land in area surrounding the proposed development.
vii. Only allow developers to pay a Park-in-lieu-fee where there is an adequately sized
park (provide 5 acres per 1,000 population) within a 10-minute walk of their
development, and growth management planned future development in that area
will not require more park land to provide 5 acres per 1,000 population) within a
10-minute walk.
viii. Consider updating Park policy to provide more multi-use flexibility in park land acres
and development on Parks. Many Carlsbad Park acres are developed/dedicated to a
single-purpose use, and unavailable for other park uses.
ix. Consider eliminating car parking lots from land that can be counted as parkland; or
by significantly limiting park land used for parking to around 5%.
x. Eliminate the counting of ‘GM Constrained and Unusable land’ and Protected
Endangered Species Habitat land as Park land. GM Constrained/Unusable lands
are undevelopable. Protected Habitat lands are by definition not useable for
development by people. Habitat is dedicated for plants and animals. Parks are
open spaces dedicated intended for people. Parkland calculations should exclude
Unusable lands and Protected Habitat lands and only count 100% people Useable
land as Park land. Where Park land abuts Habitat land a sufficient buffer space shall
be provided to prevent people mixing with animals (ex. Rattlesnakes, etc.) and
animals from people (habitat disturbance or destruction). This buffer area should
not be counted as Park or Habitat acres, but as natural/developed buffer open
space acres, and can be counted as part of the City’s 15% Growth Management
‘Aesthetic open Space’.
5. Carlsbad’s Coast is the most, if not the most, important feature of Carlsbad; and is consistently
identified by citizens and businesses and our Community Vision. Carlsbad’s Coastal Parks (west of
the I-5 corridor) are grossly unfairly distributed. Carlsbad’s Coastal Parks do not fairly match the
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 5 of 9
locational needs of the population. North Carlsbad that is 38% of Carlsbad’s population and has
10 Coastal Parks totaling 37+ acres in size. South Carlsbad that is 62% of Carlsbad’s population has
0 [ZERO] Coastal Parks totaling 0 [ZERO] acres. Again, Carlsbad’s Park Master Plan maps this
citywide unfairness (dots show park locations and circles show the area served by each park) and
says that the City should look at buying and building New Parks in these areas that are unserved by
City Parks (are not covered by a circle). The GM Update should correct this citywide unfair
distribution of City Parks by making plans for new Park purchases to create City Parks in these
unserved areas of Park Inequity.
To address citywide Coastal Park unfairness the current City Council wants to spend $60-85 million
in Carlsbad tax-payer funds to Relocate 2.3 miles of constrained Pacific Coast Highway median to try
to make some of the narrow PCH median ‘useable’ by people. 2001 and 2013 City PCH Relocation
studies identified only a small amount of ‘people-useable acres’ would be created next to PCH. The
$60-85 million tax-payer cost ($26-37 million per mile) does NOT add one single square foot of new
City land, it only inefficiently rearranges a small amount PCH median. The City can most tax-payer
cost effectively provide needed sidewalks and bike improvements along the outside edges of PCH
without PCH Relocation. The City’s 2001 PCH Relocation Financial Study and 2013 PCH Relocation
Design both indicated minimal useable land could be achieved by Relocation, and that the very high
tax-payer cost to do so would be very difficult to fund. The City has known for well over 20-years
that PCH Relocation is a high-cost and a poor solution to address the Citywide Coastal Park
unfairness in South Carlsbad.
However, a better and far less costly solution to correct Citywide Coastal Park unfairness and
provide a much needed South Carlsbad Coastal Park is to simply buy currently vacant land that is
for sale. The City did this (although the City actually bought existing homes) when it expanded Pine
Park. Carlsbad tax-payers have used the City’s own data to compare the tax-payer Cost/Benefits
of simply purchasing vacant land v. trying to rearrange existing City owned land at PCH. Simply
buying vacant land saves tax-payers saves tax-payers over $32.7 to $7.7 million. Please read the
following data files:
2022-June General Comparative tax-payer Costs/Benefits of Completing PCH, 2.3 miles of
PCH Modification (Island Way to La Costa Ave.), and 14.3 acre Ponto Park (Kam Sang) to
address planned loss of 30+ acres of Coastal Open Space Land Use at Ponto in South
Carlsbad: Part 1 of 2.
City’s PCH Modification Proposal Area Map with notes on usability Constraints and Issues:
P4P Input: Part 2 of 2
The most recent (9/19/22) land sale of 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F was less than $8
million (less than $706,000 per acre).
Buying and developing this 11.1 acre Ponto Park would cost less than $20 million
assuming a 10% profit to the new land-owner, and $1 million per acre park construction
cost like our newest Buena Vista Reservoir Park. The cost to help correct a Citywide
Coastal Park unfairness by simply buying & building a much needed 11.1 acre Ponto Coastal
Park would cost tax-payers less than the recently approved Measure J City Monroe Street
Pool Renovation. Investing less than $20 million ($1.8 million per acre) to buy and build an
11.1 acre Ponto Coastal Park is a great tax-payer value v. $65-80 million in tax-payer funds
to rearrange 15.8 acres of narrow strips of constrained PCH median (City documented
“Surplus Land Area #4 &5”) for some minimal people use at a tax-payer cost of $4-5 million
per acre. The overall and per acre costs of buying/building Ponto Park are over 2 to 3
times better value for tax-payers than PCH Relocation/rearrangement.
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 6 of 9
The City Council could/can buy land for Open Space (Parks are the most useable of the City’s
4 Open Space categories) under voter approved Prop C Open Space land acquisition
authority. The City has been advised to buy Ponto Park under Prop C per the City’s
settlement of a Growth Management law suit.
The Park and Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad is clearly a citywide issue.
Park and Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad as it is unfair to the vast
majority of Carlsbad citizens and their families as 62% of Carlsbad is in South Carlsbad. Park and
Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad is unfair to our major Visitor serving
industries (and tax generators) in South Carlsbad. Park and Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and
Coastal South Carlsbad are clearly inconsistent with the CA Coastal Act, Carlsbad’s Community
Vision, and common sense. The Coastal South Carlsbad Park Inequity is also unfair to North
Carlsbad because South Carlsbad’s Coastal Park demand is being forced into Coastal North Carlsbad
and congesting those parks, and adding to Coastal North Carlsbad traffic and parking impacts. It
also increases greenhouse gases and VMT as it forces longer vehicle trips.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
i. 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F has a specific Local Coastal Program Land Use Policy
that says The City of Carlsbad must for the Ponto Area LCP ‘Consider and Document
the need for Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and or Low-Cost Visitor
Accommodations west of the railroad tracks (at Ponto) prior to any Land Use
change. The discussion of Parks by the CTGMC is such a situation that requires the
CTGMC to consider this adopted LCP Land Use Policies. Official public records
requests have shown the City never followed this LCP Land Use Policy
Requirement during the 2005 Ponto Vision Plan and 2015 General Plan Update,
and in 2010 the CA Coastal Commission rejected the Ponto Vision Plan and told
the City in 2017 that that land uses at Ponto could change based on the need for
Coastal Recreation and/or Low Cost Visitor Accommodations. The Mello II LCP
that covers most of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone also has Land Use Policy 6.2 for the City
to consider a major park in the Batiquitos (Ponto/South Carlsbad) area. The City has
only implemented 1/6 to 1/3 of this policy. The CTGMC should fully evaluate the
citywide/South Carlsbad and local Ponto need for Coastal Parks as required by the
City’s adopted LCPs and CA Coastal Act.
ii. Carlsbad’s 2015 General Plan Update and Growth Management Plan (GMP) did not,
and was not updated to, consider the 2017 Sea Level Rise (SLR) Impact report
showing the loss/impact on 32+ acres of Carlsbad’s Coastal Land Use acreage in
South Carlsbad – primarily Open Space Land Use (beach and Campground). Both
the General Plan (and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan) and GMP should be
updated to account for the loss and replacement of these 32+ acres of high-
priority Coastal Open Space Land Use due to SLR. The updates and the CTGMC
should use the newest CA Coastal Commission SLR Guidelines/science, not the old
guidelines used in 2017. Carlsbad’s LCP and CA Coastal Act Land Use Polies call for
‘upland relocation’ to replace the SLR loss of high-priority Coastal Land Uses.
iii. The availability over the past several years of the last two sufficiently sized vacant
lands suitable for a Ponto/South Carlsbad Coastal Park is a citywide issue. If these
last two vacant lands are lost to development forever future generations will have
lost the last opportunity for the needed South Carlsbad Coastal Park. The 5/3/22
Citizen requests for the City to jointly study acquisition of one or both these last
vacant lands for a needed (and only possible) true and meaningful Coastal Park for
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 7 of 9
South Carlsbad should be recommended by the CTGMC. The CTGMC should
recommend Carlsbad’s GMP be updated to incorporate Parkland acquisition of
these last opportunities to provide the needed Coastal Park for South Carlsbad.
6. Carlsbad Growth Management Open Space Standard is that 15% of all the Useable (unconstrained
and fully buildable) areas is to be preserved as Useable Open Space, and that all the 25 Local Facility
Management Plans (LFMP) show how that 15% is provided. The City says:
Yet the City has mapped and documented that this 15% Useable Open Space Performance Standard
was not complied with. The City also acknowledges that without changes to current City planning
the 15% Useable Open Space Performance Standard will never be complied with. The City
acknowledges that only 13% has/will under current plans ever be provided. This missing 2% equals
501 acers of lost GM Open Space the GMP promised citizens. Carlsbad law the Growth
Management Ordinance 21.90, and section ‘21.90.130 Implementation of facilities and
improvements requirements’; provide guidance on how non-compliance with a Performance
Standards is to be handled.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
i. Retain the GM Open Space Standard of 15% of all unconstrained and developable
land is maintained as Open Space. If the City removes the Open Space Standard, it
will allow and encourage land use changes to remove GM Open Space and replace
with development.
ii. The CTGMC should make a recommendation that an inventory of all 25 LFMP
Zones be conducted and an inventory of each LFMP Zones provision of at least
15% Useable Open Space shall be compiled. No LFMP Zone shall be allowed to be
“exempt” from this inventory. The City’s computerized GIS mapping system makes
it easy and clear as shown in the following City GIS map for LFMP Zone 9 (aka
Ponto).
OPEN SPACE
A. Performance Standard
Fifteen percent of t he total land uea in t he Local Facility Menagement Zone (LFMZ) exclusive
of environmentally const rained non-developable land must be set aside for permanent open
space and must be a11ai I able concurrent with development.
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 8 of 9
City GIS map of Ponto’s (LFMP Zone 9)
Open Space:
Light green areas meet the City’s 15%
unconstrained Growth Management
Program Open Space Standard
Most Ponto Open Space (pink hatch &
blue [water] on map) is “Constrained”
and does not meet the Standard
Aviara - Zone 19, Ponto - Zone 9 and
Hanover/Poinsettia Shores – Zone 22
all developed around the same time
and had similar vacant lands.
City required Aviara - Zone 19 east of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto? Aviara
includes the same lagoon.
City required Hanover & Poinsettia
Shores area Zone 22 just north of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto?
Why Ponto developers were not
required to comply with the 15%
Useable Open Space Standard is
subject to current litigation
Below is City GIS data from this map
City GIS map data summary of the Growth Management Standard of 15% Useable Open Space at Ponto
472 Acres Total land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
(197 Acres) Constrained land excluded from Growth Management (GMP) Open Space
275 Acres Unconstrained land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
X 15% GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space requirement
41 Acres GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space required
(11 Acres) GMP Open Space provided & mapped per City GIS data
30 Acres Missing Unconstrained Open Space needed in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] to meet the City’s
minimum GMP Open Space Standard per City’s GIS map & data
73% of the City’s minimum 15% required Open Space Standard is missing due to over
development of LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
• j ••-.•~•I ; , .... ~ ..
Q)l:ltl$~C~ 0Patt(f$
~ 1~PreseM11cno1H.111nfl-c:J Lf'MZ980unclt't
O :t•WOO<J'~ c:Jcc,ens.,_~
0
MlliJs
g ,-~~ .•;;·';.,.-.-::~.;•.-' .....
N
A
O ,oo 200 300 .4(1(1
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 9 of 9
iii. In instances like LFMP Zone 9 (above image) that clearly did not provide at least 15%
Useable Open Space and/or were falsely “exempted” the CTGMC should
recommend that a Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan shall
be developed that explores the GM Open Space use/reuse of City land, land use
planning requirements, and/or possible acquisitions of remaining vacant land acres
to make up for any shortfall in meeting the 15% Useable Open Space in that a Zone.
An example of this in LFMP Zone 9 is that the City’s regional Rail Trail will convert 2-
lanes of almost all of Avenida Encinas to wider buffered bike lanes and an adequate
portion of the converted 2 vehicle lanes can be landscaped (v. just painting strips as
a buffer) to provide a safer/better bike lane buffer within a GM compliant Open
Space. 2 vehicle lanes in Windrose Circle could also be similarly landscaped and
converted to GM complaint Open Space. This is just one example of a cost-effective
means to add GM Open Space that developers were falsely allowed to remove.
iv. A Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan should involve a
Citizens Advisory Committee composed of citizens within the impacted Zone and
appointed by the Council Members representing the Zone, and a representative of
each vacant land owner over of over 1-acre in size.
v. Consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance land use changes and
development applications within a Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space
Correction Plan Zone shall be deferred until the applications can considered with (or
after adoption of) a Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan.
1
Jennifer Jesser
From:Lance Schulte <meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 19, 2023 3:32 PM
To:Growth Management Committee; Michele Hardy; Council Internet Email; City Clerk; Kyle Lancaster;
Eric Lardy; 'Smith, Darren@Parks'; 'Homer, Sean@Parks'; 'Moran, Gina@Parks'; Boyle, Carrie@Coastal;
'Prahler, Erin@Coastal'; 'Ross, Toni@Coastal'; melanie@melanieforcarlsbad.com
Cc:info@peopleforponto.com
Subject:RE: Public input for Carlsbad LCPA-Parks Master Plan & Growth Management Plan Updates - number
of hotel rooms per mile of coastline for Carlsbad and comparable cities
Attachments:SAG-Tourism-Industry-Study-Report-FINAL-012815.pdf
Dear Carlsbad City Council, Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Parks and Planning Commissions, and
CA Coastal Commission and CA State Parks:
As the City has requested specific reference regarding public input, I ask you to please deliver to the those address this
email and attachment as public input for:
1. the CTGMC’s February 2023 meeting,
2. the next Carlsbad Council meeting,
3. the next Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commission meetings on the Parks Master Plan and Growth Management
Program Updates, and Carlsbad’s Ponto Planning Area F and Site 18 planning and development applications, and
4. as public input to the CA Coastal Commission on Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment.
The CTGMC discussed the need to consider the impacts that Carlsbad visitors (i.e. hotel guests) have on City Parks and
how that relates to the length of coastline. Staff did not provide the CTGMC that data so using data from the City’s
January 2015 Tourism Industry Study of ‘comparable cities’ the following data table below provides that information as
of January 2015. Also included in the Parkserve Park Accessibility data from Trust for Public Land.
The ‘comparable city’ data show Carlsbad provides (in 2015) the 2nd highest amount of hotel rooms per mile of coastline,
and the lowest park accessibility (for residents). The hotel room data could be updated to 2023, and GIS mapping could
include park accessibility data for all land in a city so as to include non‐residential hotel land uses.
Further research to address the CTGMC questions would be done to compare the amount of City Parkland each of the
‘Carlsbad comparable cities’ provide as their developer required acre of parkland (3 to 5 acres) relative to hotel rooms.
All this data has important relevance to Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, Park
Master Plan Update, Parkland Dedication ‘In‐lieu‐fee’ Update, and Carlsbad’s Park amenity offering for hotel
guests. Attached is Carlsbad’s 2015 Tourism Industry Study for reference. The Study also documents Accommodation
costs and key amenities desired by guests.
I hope the data is helpful.
Lance Schulte
2
From: Lance Schulte [mailto:meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 3:53 PM
To: 'committee@carlsbadca.gov'; 'Michele Hardy'; 'council@carlsbadca.gov'; 'City Clerk'; 'Kyle Lancaster'; 'Eric Lardy';
'Smith, Darren@Parks'; 'Homer, Sean@Parks'; 'Moran, Gina@Parks'; 'Carrie Boyle'; 'Prahler, Erin@Coastal'; 'Ross,
Toni@Coastal'; 'melanie@melanieforcarlsbad.com'
Cc: 'info@peopleforponto.com'
Subject: Public input for Carlsbad LCPA-Parks Master Plan & Growth Management Plan Updates - Carlsbad below
national average and lowest So CA Coastal city in providing Parks within 10-minute walk
Dear Carlsbad City Council, Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Parks and Planning Commissions, and
CA Coastal Commission and CA State Parks:
As the City has requested specific reference regarding public input, I ask you to please deliver to the those address this
email and attachment as public input for:
1. the CTGMC’s February 2023 meeting,
2. the next Carlsbad Council meeting,
3. the next Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commission meetings on the Parks Master Plan and Growth Management
Program Updates, and Carlsbad’s Ponto Planning Area F and Site 18 planning and development applications, and
4. as public input to the CA Coastal Commission on Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment.
For years Carlsbad Citizens have told the City that there is a need for a Park at Ponto:
to provide for documented Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) land use at Ponto,
to correct for the conversion of a 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use to Residential use and the
elimination of planned Coastal Open Space at Ponto,
to correct the Carlsbad’s Park Master Plan documented lack of Park Service at Ponto,
to provide South Carlsbad (62% of Carlsbad’s total population and the City’s major Coastal visitor and transit
occupancy tax generator) with their ONLY Coastal Park west of I‐5. The City unfairly, and contrary to CA Coastal
Act Policy disproportionally provides 10 parks totaling 37 acres west of I‐5 in Coastal North Carlsbad for 38% of
the population but 0 (zero) Coastal Parks and 0 (zero) Coastal park acres west of I‐5 in Coastal South Carlsbad
for 62% of the population,
to provide for an existing 6.5 acre local Neighborhood (i.e. Special use area) Park need at Ponto, and
to provide a City Park within a 10‐minute walk for Ponto residents.
Failure to correct this documented City Park unfairness is very damaging to the citizens, City finances, South Carlsbad’s
and California’s visitor industry. The Coastal Recreation data file sent to you earlier documents some of the key facts.
ID'l.!!latyfJICllhbl dlll m1 1
,.:.. .....
m c.-..•11•
... ,:-di ....
-11 .:I ..
3
However, we conducted some additional Trust for Public Land 10‐minute walk data collection that the City Council,
CTGMC, Parks and Planning Commissions and CA Coastal Commission need to also consider. That data is below and in
the attached file, and again with last year’s Trust for Public Land Ponto Park support letter (again attached) that reflects
on Carlsbad poor performance relative to the 24 So Cal Coastal Cities (165 miles of coastline) from Malibu to the
Mexican border in providing Parks within a 10‐minute walk. The data and links to the data source is:
Carlsbad is 10% below the national average for cities & the worst of 24
Coastal So California cities ‐ 165 miles of coastline ‐ in providing Parks
within a 10‐minute walk to residents
The Trust for Public Land documents a city’s 10‐minute walk to Park at https://www.tpl.org/parkserve
The Average USA City provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 55% of residents [10% above Carlsbad].
Carlsbad provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 49.9% of residents [10% below National Average].
New York City provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 99% of residents.
The Trust of Public Land submitted a letter to the City of Carlsbad, CA Coastal
Commission, and CA State Park supporting Ponto Park
Carlsbad is the worst of 24 Southern CA Coastal cities (from Malibu south to Imperial Beach along 165 miles of
coastline) in providing Parks within 10‐minute walk to residents:
1. Palos Verdes Estates provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 100% of residents
2. El Segundo provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 100% of residents
3. Hermosa Beach provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 100% of residents
4. Redondo Beach provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 98% of residents
5. Manhattan Beach provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 95% of residents
6. Del Mar provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 93% of residents
7. Dana Point provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 89% of residents
8. Huntington Beach provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 85% of residents
9. Long Beach provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 84% of residents
10. Laguna Beach provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 82% of residents
11. Santa Monica provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 82% of residents
12. San Diego provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 81% of residents
13. Coronado provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 76% of residents
14. Newport Beach provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 76% of residents
15. Imperial Beach provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 74% of residents
16. Encinitas provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 68% of residents
17. Los Angeles provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 63% of residents
18. Solana Beach provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 63% of residents
19. Oceanside provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 58% of residents
20. Seal Beach provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 57% of residents
21. Malibu provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 53% of residents
22. San Clemente provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 52% of residents
23. Rancho Palos Verdes provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 50% of residents
24. Carlsbad provides Parks within 10‐minute walk to 49.9% of residents.
Carlsbad is the lowest & most unfair to citizens of the 24 Southern California Coastal cities along 165 miles
of coast from Malibu to Imperial Beach.
Source of data: Trust for Public land parkscores
4
Trust for Public Land’s 10‐minute walk to Park Maps/data:
Carlsbad = https://parkserve.tpl.org/mapping/index.html?CityID=0611194#reportTop
Encinitas = https://parkserve.tpl.org/mapping/index.html?CityID=0622678
Irvine = https://parkserve.tpl.org/mapping/index.html?CityID=0636770
Please, Please, please, consider and discuss this data, and
1. Create a 10‐minute walk to City Park Standard in the
a. Parks Master Plan,
b. Growth Management Plan Update, and
c. Local Coastal Program Update.
2. Create a Park Policy that requires developers to dedicate Park Land (not pay Park‐in‐lieu‐fees) in areas that do
not a minimum of 3 acers of City Park for each in 1,000 population within a 10‐minute walk of the developer’s
proposed development (see attached CTGMC Key Issues & Suggestions file for details and Open Space
suggestions)
3. Fix Coastal South Carlsbad’s documented City Park inequity/unfairness with a significant and real Ponto Park
4. Save tax‐payers tens of millions in dollars by cost effectively purchasing vacant land at Ponto for a Park, v. trying
to maybe make a few bits of narrow PCH roadway median as a pseudo‐park
Do you want Carlsbad to be the worst city in Coastal Southern California in providing accessible Parks within a 10‐
minute walk to residents?
Do you want Carlsbad to fail to upgrade its park standards while other cities updated their park Standards and make
their cities more desirable?
Do you want to undermine the quality of life for Carlsbad citizens and their children by not providing a park within a
10‐minute walk to their home?
Do you want to force Carlsbad families to have to drive to park?
Do you want to slowly undermine a key visitor serving industry in South Carlsbad by not providing a significant and
true and meaningful Coastal Park in South Carlsbad?
Do you want tax‐payers to pay tens of millions more to try to maybe try to make a few narrow portions of PCH
median useable to people?
Please take responsibility and full ownership of your decisions on these important issues and questions. The individual
decisions you make will likely be the last ones made. Once vacant land like at Ponto is developed it will be forever lost
to address the critical, well documented Park and Coastal Park needs at Ponto as overwhelmingly communicated by
Carlsbad Citizens and visitor businesses, and other citizens.
Please be wise and think about the future your decisions will bring.
Thank you,
Lance Schulte
PS: The initial version of the “CTGMC key issues and Suggestions 2022‐12‐6” file (attached) sent to you 8/8/22. The
attached updated file should replace that older file as there is new data on significant tax‐payer cost savings from Pronto
Park relative to PCH Relocation, and updated examples of how Coastal Open Space can be cost‐effectively persevered
and increased. Both Coastal Parks and Open Space are important Carlsbad and State of CA issues.
Parks: Updated data shows that a 11.1 acre Ponto Park would now cost less $20 million to buy and build. This is
less than a City Pool Renovation. Carlsbad’s Old City Council planned to spend $65 to $80 million in Carlsbad
tax‐payer dollars to address the Citywide need for a significant Coastal Park in South Carlsbad with a 2.3 mile
PCH Relocation. The City identified in 2001 other pay‐payer funds were highly unlikely. $65 to $80 million
5
would only ‘free‐up’ 15.8 acres of narrow PCH Median (City documented “Surplus Land Area #4 & #5”). As
People for Ponto Citizens have been saying for years that Ponto Park is the better Park solution to the
documented Coastal South Carlsbad Park needs – a citywide need. The CTGMC should include that citywide
Park need and the logical, better and tax‐payer responsible Ponto Park solution to that citywide Park need in
your CTGMC recommendations to City Council.
Open Space: Updated data shows how documented GM Open Space shortfalls can be properly and responsibly
address in a collaborative citizen‐based “Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan”
approached. Also the need to maintain the 15% GM (Useable) Open Space Standard will be critical in the future
to maintain Open Space and prevent future conversion of Open Space to residential land use as part of Housing
Plan updates.
For the CTGMC; Parks and Open Space are the 2 most critical/special of 6 Key Growth Management Program Update
Issues and Suggestions the CTGMC should take to properly address these 6 key Growth Management Issues.
• Please read the Updated data and Suggestions.
• Please responsibly address the Growth Management issues of a citywide Park need for Coastal South
Carlsbad as listed in the attached Suggestions. Include a South Carlsbad Coastal Park in your
recommendations to the City Council. Acknowledge Ponto Park as the best and most tax‐payer efficient
solution to address that documented citywide park need.
• Please in your recommendations to City Council retain and enforce the Open Space Standard, and fix
past errors made in falsely exempting certain developers in certain areas in the City from complying with
the Growth Management Open Space Standard that other developers in other areas are required to
provide.
Please consider this email and attachments, and know P4P Carlsbad Citizens are here to help assure we sustain and
enhance our quality of life for future generations. People for Ponto love deeply Carlsbad and want to assure we leave a
better Carlsbad to future generations.
Happy holidays and with Aloha Aina,
Lance Schulte
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
Tourism
Industry
Study
Prepared
for
the
City
of
Carlsbad
In
collaboration
with
Carlsbad
Tourism
Business
Improvement
District
January
2015
{city of
Carlsbad
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
i
Table
of
Contents
Introduction
.................................................................................................................................................
1
Executive
Summary
......................................................................................................................................
4
The
State
of
the
Carlsbad
Tourism
Economy
...............................................................................................
7
Stakeholder
Immersion
–
Focus
Groups
................................................................................................
11
Stakeholder
Survey
................................................................................................................................
12
Regional
Industry
Stakeholder
Survey
...................................................................................................
16
Benchmarking
........................................................................................................................................
18
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis
.................................................................................................................
39
Research
Plan
–
Recommendation
.........................................................................................................
53
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing
–
A
New
Direction
........................................................................................
54
Public
Relations
......................................................................................................................................
60
Group
Sales
and
Marketing
........................................................................................................................
62
Carlsbad
Conference
Center
..................................................................................................................
68
Event
Development
....................................................................................................................................
70
The
Carlsbad
Experience
............................................................................................................................
72
Governance
................................................................................................................................................
81
Budget
........................................................................................................................................................
86
Funding
.......................................................................................................................................................
92
Conclusion
..................................................................................................................................................
96
Recommendation
Matrix
...........................................................................................................................
98
Addendum
.....................................................................................................................................................
i
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
1
Introduction
Strategic
Advisory
Group
(SAG)
in
conjunction
with
the
City
of
Carlsbad,
Carlsbad
Tourism
Business
Improvement
District
(CTBID)
and
tourism
industry
stakeholders
has
completed
an
eight-‐month
collaborative
process
that
has
included
extensive
research,
ongoing
input
and
collaboration,
and
a
review
of
current
practices.
We
have
created
a
series
of
recommendations
that
have
been
developed
from
competitive
destination
research,
collaboration
with
Carlsbad
stakeholders,
consumer
research,
Industry
best
practices
and
SAG’s
overall
experience.
SAG
has
presented
draft
recommendations
to
key
tourism
stakeholders
and
the
CTBID
Board
of
Directors
to
gain
additional
insight
prior
to
drafting
this
report.
Stakeholder
Communication
and
Involvement
SAG
would
like
to
thank
all
of
the
participants
in
this
study.
The
input
and
support
that
has
been
shown
throughout
this
process
has
demonstrated
a
high
degree
of
interest
and
willingness
to
be
involved
going
forward.
In
particular,
SAG
would
like
to
thank
Christina
Vincent
(City
of
Carlsbad)
and
Sam
Ross
(Visit
Carlsbad)
for
their
involvement.
A
steering
committee
was
formed
to
monitor
the
overall
progress
of
the
study
and
SAG
would
like
to
thank
Hector
Becerra,
Nancy
Nayudu,
and
Vikram
Sood
who
participated
with
Ms.
Vincent
and
Mr.
Ross
in
over
25
weekly
calls
during
the
past
eight
months.
SAG
also
spoke
to
current
contracted
vendors
of
Visit
Carlsbad
to
understand
their
approach
and
gain
their
insight.
SAG
would
like
to
thank
Mindgruve,
DCI
Group
and
Resonate
for
their
time
and
insight.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
2
SAG
produced
monthly
progress
updates
that
were
circulated
to
over
75
stakeholders
through
email
correspondence.
The
purpose
of
this
communication
was
to
provide
information
on
the
progress
of
the
study
and
gain
additional
feedback
throughout.
The
email
updates
were
opened
and
read
by
nearly
50%
of
the
targeted
audience
on
a
consistent
basis.
There
were
follow
up
comments
and
input
from
stakeholders
throughout
the
study
process,
which
provided
important
insight
and
feedback.
The
overall
communication
plan
was
successfully
completed
and
proved
to
be
very
beneficial
in
maintaining
contact
and
gaining
insight
throughout
the
process.
Sample
Monthly
Stakeholder
Update
Eight
monthly
updates
were
sent
to
a
broad
spectrum
of
stakeholders.
( City of
Carlsbad
Callfornla
J,u,.. .. 101,
Tourism Industry Study -Stakeholder Update
c.-r-~s-..
TM II I'll firll ecHon-, a_,..d~~ YI"' recw.-eu Chi TCIAmlrl6JIVy ~ l"f'Of¥N M~~ ol 0. ~._.,.wa"ll 10 keep you "1formed on N Pl"OCNt
..... _ ... ___ '°">' ________ _
~~r:..=...~..=:.~-~-~'--------------------,
Stakeholder Sessions
SAGYllitadandfflltwtthOYllf'20~~
IMdettlOIUmalto.AlhlcutrttlllilullLIOn.. n.,,.
iliNdttec:k. 1rom 110N CCf'Mt'<ionl ... inc:tldtltt
~.ilhfolo-llupphoneClll:enda ----SAG _ _,_ -~ _____ _,. ......
~~M~NwelNg,VUD~ __ .,,. -.. -------SAG,_.cnolOd•----~ ThtaJl'Wl'IIINMdonn:..fr9Nlf"CfttrlO andtoallgroupe: We~'f(Nfwdbectiard --("""-YUM.~-
Raaean:h SAG,_...__,., ________ _
~~--.:..:-:::--:::-...=:::n.:....~ _.,. ___ "'_ .. ,., ... __ ..... __ _
-~-~~ SAG"11--.,~--.... __ "°"'° ___ .,_,,_.,_ w,,.,.~.~-----..,,.,---SAG-bogunU._lor ____ on
staktf'lelldwinputef~~W.--~f'IONOOl'TIPMil'Ye~ --o,go,m■onl SAO ..... b<UongOUl---,bucl!lltl,~OO -"""--·-"'_., ____ $_ --.,---~.,_,.ayond.-,oly
PRlZM
PRlZM wa 11cw ._. IO buld • ~ ol
MQf'l"lll'Wlfl'Clrl\~INmcMteClMI
_____ ...,
PRIZMl'NIJi. .,_..,.to .... .,. ----Outgoolll100% __ _
IIZ9,lhtfflCW'e~INl"Nlnandmor.
--"""""" ... PloeN ........... .My 5 201•
Noxt Steps
lnlW C011W10 ..... SAG '#IM ooncw...ig to WOik
SAG--~IO t.w ccnYfflilltionsWdh
OAdditioNll~OOtlYet'laliOtw ·-
TlmeUn•
·--hlffNIAAII
o..tJIN!t!Of'eo.,q,.,,.on
CMINNdTOliMIM"!4N,tytu
Slniit-.,c Acuofl ~ -.. -°"""' ,.,, .. Rc-po,rl
... "41tUAt,an & ~•--11"'-W•",_ Hot oo,w v.r
Thank You
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
3
Ongoing
Communication
must
continue
The
ongoing
dialogue
and
reporting
to
the
tourism
industry
and
broader
business
community
must
continue
as
part
of
the
successful
implementation
of
the
recommendations.
SAG
encountered
many
stakeholders
who
were
not
well
informed
about
current
activities
and
results.
SAG
recommends
that
electronic
updates
with
newly
recommended
metrics
for
results
continue
to
be
distributed
monthly.
The
communication
should
also
include
brief
updates
on
the
implementation
of
the
approved
recommendations.
The
monthly
communication
should
be
formatted
to
be
reviewed
in
three
to
five
minutes
by
the
recipient.
In
total,
the
study
process
included
over
175
“points
of
contact”
between
focus
groups,
surveys,
one-‐on-‐
one
interviews,
group
meetings,
and
draft
presentations.
This
process
has
ensured
that
all
interested
parties
have
had
the
opportunity
to
give
input
and
share
perspectives.
This
input
has
been
valuable
and
has
helped
craft
the
overall
recommendations.
Opportunity
for
Transformation
The
recommendations
in
this
report
create
a
foundation
for
the
transformation
of
the
tourism
sales
and
marketing
efforts
as
well
as
an
approach
to
future
tourism
product
development.
The
process
has
uncovered
opportunities
to
focus
future
efforts
and
monitor
results.
This
approach
will
create
an
ongoing
platform
to
continue
to
refine,
monitor
and
evolve
tourism
efforts
in
the
future.
Recommendations
are
throughout
the
document
and
consolidated
in
the
conclusion
of
this
report.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
4
Executive
Summary
SAG
has
completed
an
extensive
analysis
that
has
included
internal
and
external
research
and
input
from
the
City
of
Carlsbad,
CTBID,
Visit
Carlsbad,
and
numerous
tourism
stakeholders.
This
process
has
uncovered
many
recommendations
that
are
detailed
in
the
full
report
and
summarized
in
the
Executive
Summary.
SAG
would
like
to
thank
everyone
who
has
been
involved
in
the
collaborative
process
throughout
the
past
eight
months.
The
level
of
interest
and
support
for
the
future
of
tourism
in
Carlsbad
is
outstanding.
This
creates
a
solid
foundation
for
the
effective
implementation
of
the
approved
recommendations.
Overall,
SAG
recommends
a
significant
transformation
in
the
direction
of
tourism
for
Carlsbad.
There
is
an
opportunity
to
focus
future
tourism
efforts
in
a
manner
that
will
impact
results
and
utilize
resources
in
areas
where
there
is
a
clear
need
to
drive
demand.
In
conjunction
with
this,
SAG
has
recommended
items
to
be
considered
to
enhance
the
Carlsbad
tourism
experience
in
the
future.
A
successful
tourism
sales
and
marketing
effort
must
have
accountability
and
measurement
built
in
as
a
fundamental
practice.
SAG
has
recommended
a
plan
to
ensure
these
characteristics
begin
immediately
upon
adoption
of
the
recommendations.
Initial
goals
have
been
presented
in
collaboration
with
industry
stakeholders,
CTBID
and
Visit
Carlsbad.
An
effective
measurement
plan
involves
the
tourism
industry
as
well
as
Visit
Carlsbad
and
will
require
ongoing
collaboration.
The
following
list
is
an
overview
of
the
recommendations
contained
in
this
report.
The
subsequent
sections
in
the
report
will
describe
these
recommendations
in
more
detail
as
well
as
describe
implementation
strategies.
Re-‐Focus
a
Majority
of
the
Tourism
Resources
on
Impacting
the
Shoulder
Season
Carlsbad
enjoys
strong
tourist
demand
over
the
summer
months.
June,
July,
and
August
consistently
produce
hotel
occupancies
over
80%
and
the
average
daily
hotel
rate
continues
to
grow
over
this
period.
SAG
recommends
shifting
sales
and
marketing
resources
to
measureable
group
and
leisure
efforts
focused
on
increasing
demand
from
September
through
March.
Reallocate
Marketing
Resources
–
Group
vs.
Leisure
Transient
The
current
funding
allocation
of
sales
and
marketing
resources
from
Visit
Carlsbad
focuses
90%
of
the
overall
resources
on
increasing
awareness
in
the
individual
travel
leisure
market.
The
recommended
approach
will
include
the
development
of
an
effective
group
sales
and
marketing
effort,
as
well
as
developing
a
more
targeted
approach
with
individual
leisure
travel.
Develop
a
Highly
Targeted
Approach
for
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing
The
combination
of
available
research
coupled
with
the
outcome
of
the
Nielsen
lifestyle
research
creates
an
opportunity
to
focus
on
market
segments
that
have
shown
interest
in
Carlsbad
during
the
shoulder
periods
(September
through
March).
SAG
recommends
utilizing
a
direct
marketing
approach
to
increase
awareness
and
drive
conversion
of
overnight
stays
from
these
markets.
Institute
a
New
Approach
to
Measurement
and
Reporting
It
is
recommended
that
there
is
a
new
approach
to
tracking
and
reporting
tourism
results
in
the
future.
This
includes
a
broader
stakeholder
report
that
will
track
quantitative
results
on
a
monthly
basis
and
how
the
overall
performance
compares
to
annually
approved
goals.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
5
Refocus
Target
Markets
for
Leisure
travel
SAG
has
evaluated
current
online
data,
past
visitor
profile
studies,
as
well
as
completed
an
analysis
of
over
50,000
hotel
guest
records
to
determine
the
market
segments
that
present
the
highest
potential
for
Carlsbad’s
future
leisure
sales
and
marketing
efforts.
The
research
has
indicated
that
there
is
a
significant
difference
in
who
has
shown
interest
in
Carlsbad
during
the
shoulder
periods
(September
through
March)
and
the
highly
occupied
summer
months.
This
underscores
the
need
to
focus
on
those
segments
where
Carlsbad
can
build
increased
visitor
activity
during
the
times
of
year
that
warrant
proactive
efforts.
In
summary,
the
segment
(called
“Uppercrust”
by
Nielsen)
that
surfaced
in
the
analysis
can
be
characterized
as
higher
income
(over
$100,000),
over
55
years
old,
and
without
kids
in
the
house.
The
top
three
Shoulder
Season
markets
are
outlined
in
this
report.
This
research
and
data
creates
an
opportunity
to
target
this
segment
with
specific
offers
as
recommended
earlier.
Create
and
Implement
a
new
Group
Sales
and
Marketing
Effort
With
287,000
square
feet
of
meeting
space
in
Carlsbad
and
after
receiving
consistent
stakeholder
feedback,
SAG
has
conducted
an
analysis
of
a
national
meetings
database
and
determined
that
there
is
an
opportunity
to
develop
a
group
sales
and
marketing
plan
to
increase
awareness
and
develop
new
business
for
Carlsbad.
Create
a
Unified
Approach
to
Governance
The
current
governance
model
that
encompasses
two
governing
boards
of
directors
for
the
CTBID
and
Visit
Carlsbad
can
be
more
efficient
and
effective.
The
recommendation
is
to
create
a
singular
governing
board
that
will
provide
the
oversight
and
guidance
for
both
CTBID
and
Visit
Carlsbad.
In
conjunction
with
this,
the
formation
of
active
committees
to
oversee
the
group
sales
and
leisure
sales
and
marketing
efforts
will
help
support
the
implementation
of
the
recommendations
in
these
areas.
Funding
The
benchmarking
data
indicated
Carlsbad
ranked
very
low
in
amount
of
tourism
dollars
expended
based
on
the
overall
size
of
the
tourism
industry
in
comparison
with
cities
of
similar
size
and
quality.
The
opportunity
exists
to
bring
additional
industry
partners
into
the
funding
model
over
time.
The
restaurant
industry
is
a
natural
partner
due
to
the
direct
benefit
it
receives
from
successful
tourism
marketing.
SAG
recommends
a
performance-‐based
approach
to
expending
future
transient
occupancy
tax
(TOT)
dollars
for
use
on
tourism
marketing
efforts.
The
other
recommended
opportunity
is
to
increase
the
current
fees
that
are
paid
for
the
CTBID
in
conjunction
with
industry
support
of
the
future
direction.
The
overall
approach
of
the
report
recommendations
creates
an
effective
platform
for
determining
the
return
on
investment
for
future
expenditures.
The
Carlsbad
Experience
The
quantitative
and
qualitative
research
reinforced
the
challenge
of
increasing
awareness
and
interest
in
the
balance
of
tourism
opportunities
in
Carlsbad
beyond
LEGOLAND
and
the
beach.
The
current
and
proposed
retail
development
will
greatly
improve
the
Carlsbad
shopping
experience.
SAG
has
evaluated
other
potential
investments
to
enhance
the
Carlsbad
experience.
Investments
in
the
Carlsbad
Aqua
Hedionda
Lagoon,
transportation,
a
new
approach
to
beach
camping,
and
a
conference/event
center
are
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
6
highlighted
in
this
report.
An
increased
collaboration
with
the
Carlsbad
Village
is
recommended.
This
will
highlight
current
events
as
well
as
maximize
the
opportunities
to
leverage
marketing
efforts
and
support
future
funding
and
capital
plans.
Conclusion
The
collaborative
and
research-‐based
approach
that
we
have
employed
in
this
process
has
uncovered
many
exciting
opportunities
for
the
future
of
tourism
in
Carlsbad.
The
recommendations
that
are
contained
in
this
report
can
be
achieved
within
the
current
resources
that
are
available.
This
does
not
include
the
resources
needed
to
impact
the
tourism
assets
outlined
in
the
report.
The
need
for
additional
funding
will
increase
awareness
of
the
destination
and
the
conversion
of
new
business
for
Carlsbad.
The
key
stakeholders
including
the
City
of
Carlsbad,
CTBID,
Visit
Carlsbad
and
the
tourism
industry
have
demonstrated
interest
in
transforming
the
future
approach
to
tourism.
The
recommendations
contained
in
this
report
create
the
roadmap
to
increasing
the
overall
effectiveness
of
future
efforts.
SAG
recommends
the
approval
and
adoption
of
the
recommendations
contained
in
this
report.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
7
The
State
of
the
Carlsbad
Tourism
Economy
SAG
has
reviewed
the
current
tourism
economy
to
understand
current
trends
and
determine
opportunities
for
future
growth.
Tourism
is
a
major
economic
driver
for
the
City
of
Carlsbad
and
benefits
multiple
industries
and
attractions
within
the
City.
In
2013,
Carlsbad
saw
nearly
3
million
tourists,
according
to
an
annual
survey
of
visitors
to
San
Diego
County
completed
by
CIC
Research
Inc.
This
is
a
10%
increase
over
2011
generating
millions
of
dollars
in
spending
and
revenue
for
the
City.
The
following
is
an
overview
of
key
indicators
of
the
Carlsbad
Tourism
Economy:
Current
Target
Market:
Families
with
children
under
12
years
old
with
a
median
household
income
of
$79,800.
This
determination
was
made
based
on
the
results
of
past
visitor
profile
studies.
These
were
findings
based
on
a
year
round
aggregate
of
Carlsbad
visitors.
SAG
has
conducted
research
to
distinguish
future
target
markets
for
different
times
of
year.
This
will
be
reviewed
later
in
this
report.
Occupancy
Carlsbad
is
seeing
an
increase
in
annual
occupancy.
The
chart
below
shows
the
trends
of
occupancy
growth
over
the
past
five
years.
The
year-‐to-‐date
occupancy
for
Carlsbad
is
68%.
While
the
trends
are
positive,
this
demonstrates
that
there
is
opportunity
to
improve
year-‐round
occupancy.
The
occupancy
during
summer
months
is
87%
and
only
62%
in
the
shoulder
season
according
to
2014
occupancy
reports
tracked
by
Visit
Carlsbad.
This
indicates
an
opportunity
for
growth.
The
focus
of
recommendations
contained
in
this
report
is
on
increasing
visitation
during
non-‐summer
periods.
Source:
Visit
Carlsbad
*Data
for
2014
only
through
September
68.0%
65.8%
65.6%
62.6%
62.1%
62.0%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
70%
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Carlsbad
Average
Annual
Occupancy
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
8
The
chart
below
shows
last
fiscal
year(FY)
2014
in
green
and
the
beginning
of
FY
2015
in
blue.
Carlsbad’s
monthly
occupancy
trends
are
rising
each
year
respectively
each
month.
*Carlsbad
FY2015
(blue)
–
data
only
through
September
2014
Seasonality
Carlsbad
experiences
a
high
Summer
Season
and
a
lower
Shoulder
Season
for
hotel
and
visitor
demand.
High
season,
summer,
begins
after
Easter,
typically
in
May
and
continues
through
August.
During
these
months,
Carlsbad’s
hotels
experience
high
demand
and
high
occupancy.
Conversely,
the
Shoulder
Season
months
of
September
through
March
experience
much
lower
demand
and
therefore
lower
occupancy.
The
need
period
for
hotels
and
for
the
City
is
the
Shoulder
Season
of
September
through
March.
The
chart
below
illustrates
the
Shoulder
Season
that
must
be
a
focus
of
future
tourism
efforts.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Carlsbad
Year
over
Year
Occupancy
by
Month
Carlsbad
FY2010
Carlsbad
FY2011
Carlsbad
FY2012
Carlsbad
FY2013
Carlsbad
FY2014
Carlsbad
FY2015
89%
84%
65%
63%
60%
52%
58%
65%
75%
81%
72%
84%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
FY
2013-‐2014
Occupancy
by
Month
Need
Period
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
■
■
■
■
■
■
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
9
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
Collection
The
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
(TOT)
revenue
has
steadily
increased
since
Fiscal
Year
2009-‐2010.
Year
over
Year
the
average
increase
is
about
15%
in
TOT
revenue.
Last
Fiscal
Year
(2013-‐2014)
the
City
of
Carlsbad
collected
$17,453,760
in
TOT
and
is
on
pace
to
beat
that
number
in
the
current
fiscal
year
(2014-‐2015).
All
of
the
TOT
revenue
collected
by
the
City
goes
into
the
City’s
General
Fund
and
does
not
resupply
the
tourism
effort.
The
TOT
revenue
accounts
for
7%
of
the
City
of
Carlsbad’s
annual
revenue,
which
is
projected
to
increase
in
FY
2014-‐2015.
The
opening
of
the
LEGOLAND
hotel
in
spring
2013
provided
a
new
demand
generator,
which
helped
increase
occupancy
and
overall
tax
collection.
The
growth
of
the
TOT
presents
an
opportunity
for
future
tourism
funding.
This
is
reviewed
later
in
the
report.
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
TOT
Annual
History
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
10
Recent
Growth
The
chart
below
highlights
the
growth
of
TOT
revenue
over
the
past
six
years,
in
spite
of
coming
out
of
the
Great
Recession
(Dec.
2007
–
June
2009).
It
is
important
to
note
that
during
this
time
revenues
quickly
rebounded
and
grew
34%.
This
trend
opens
the
possibility
of
using
TOT
as
a
vehicle
to
increase
tourism
marketing
resources
in
the
future.
Tourism
Spending
Carlsbad’s
local
economy
benefits
from
tourism
direct
spending
in
the
City
at
restaurants,
shops,
hotels,
amenities,
and
attractions
year
round.
In
the
last
Visitor
Profile
Study,
conducted
by
the
San
Diego
Tourism
Authority
in
2013,
it
was
determined
the
average
spend
per
person,
per
day
was
$328
and
the
average
visitor
group
size
was
3.1
people.
Based
on
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website
statistics,
the
most
frequent
visitors
to
the
Carlsbad
website
had
a
household
income
of
$150,000+
with
children;
significantly
different
from
$77,000
according
to
the
Visitor
Profile
Study
in
2013.
In
addition,
most
visitors
are
staying
overnight
for
an
average
of
two
nights.
With
the
recent
uptick
in
the
economy
and
strengthened
recovery
from
the
recession,
SAG
would
estimate
that
the
tourism
economy
in
Carlsbad
is
poised
to
grow
stronger
in
time
with
a
focused
marketing
effort.
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
FY
13-‐14
FY
12-‐13
FY
11-‐12
FY
10-‐11
FY
09-‐10
FY
08-‐09
Recent
Annual
TOT
Revenue
34%
increase
in
4
years
LEGOLAND
opens
hotel
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
11
Stakeholder
Immersion
–
Focus
Groups
Stakeholder
Involvement
SAG
engaged
over
100
tourism,
business
and
regional
stakeholders
invested
in
Carlsbad
during
this
process.
SAG
held
three
in-‐person
focus
groups,
conducted
dozens
of
one-‐on-‐one
phone
interviews,
distributed
monthly
stakeholder
updates
via
email
to
75
stakeholders,
and
conducted
two
targeted
surveys
for
feedback
and
perception
of
Carlsbad
as
a
tourism
destination.
The
Good
News
Stakeholders
in
Carlsbad
are
engaged
and
interested
in
the
future
of
the
City
and
the
tourism
market.
The
feedback
we
received
repeated
several
themes
around
inclusion
in
future
planning,
target
markets,
and
interest
in
development
and
funding.
The
responses
demonstrated
that
a
stakeholder-‐supported
approach
will
garner
stronger
participation
and
involvement.
This
is
a
critical
ingredient
in
the
successful
implementation
of
the
final
recommendations.
The
Important
News
Stakeholders
firmly
believe
the
marketing
efforts
need
to
be
reevaluated
and
refocused.
SAG
spent
time
on
this
topic
with
stakeholders
and
with
Mindgruve
as
well
as
DCI,
both
marketing
and
public
relations
partners
of
Visit
Carlsbad,
to
understand
the
current
efforts,
targets,
and
goals.
More
detail
is
provided
in
the
Leisure
Sales
&
Marketing
section
of
this
report
as
well
as
the
Public
Relations
section.
Stakeholders
also
believe
that
the
tourism
efforts
are
underfunded
and
would
support
new
funding
initiatives
if
they
had
the
opportunity
to
review
and
contribute
to
a
new
plan.
These
comments
show
that
the
stakeholders
are
engaged
and
interested
in
growing
tourism
in
Carlsbad,
and
most
importantly,
being
a
part
of
the
planning
process.
The
comments
above
also
point
out
a
reluctance
to
increase
their
financial
participation
until
a
new
direction
is
implemented.
Carlsbad
has
a
unique
opportunity
with
a
majority
of
stakeholders
willing
to
come
to
the
table
to
plan
together
for
the
future
of
the
destination.
Stakeholder
comments
around
interest
in
the
tourism
plan
and
future
funding:
“The
importance
of
tourism
marketing
should
be
embraced
by
entities
and
businesses
that
benefit
from
tourism
dollars.
It
is
a
fact
that
Carlsbad
does
have
competitors
and
those
competitors
that
have
a
city
who
embraces
destination
marketing
will
be
the
big
winners.”
“We
would
want
to
see
other
organizations
joining
in
and
see
a
better
return
on
investment.”
“It
would
depend
on
the
funding
models,
but
we
support
a
greater
level
of
funding.”
“I
would
have
to
see
the
plan
first
and
it
would
need
to
be
presented
to
the
appropriate
channels.”
“I
believe
there
is
an
opportunity
to
create
a
platform
for
increased
funding.”
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
12
Stakeholder
Survey
SAG
conducted
a
quantitative
survey
and
reached
out
to
over
75
Carlsbad
tourism
stakeholders.
Stakeholders
are
made
up
of
people
that
have
knowledge
of
the
tourism
industry
through
hotel
properties,
restaurants,
amenities,
or
civic
engagement.
There
was
a
30%
response
rate,
which
provided
a
representative
sample.
The
following
is
a
recap
of
the
responses
to
the
survey.
Stakeholders
believe
Carlsbad
is
a
true
destination
worthy
of
its
own
brand
and
marketing
efforts.
Stakeholders
also
felt
that
the
current
Visitor
Profile
Study
supported
information
should
not
necessarily
remain
as
Carlsbad’s
primary
target
market.
The
stakeholders
indicated
an
interest
in
evaluating
which
markets
would
impact
the
shoulder
periods.
Currently,
Carlsbad
is
targeting
families
with
children
under
12
years
old
and
stakeholders
believe
there
is
more
out
there
for
this
destination
as
55%
of
respondents
want
to
pursue
“new
and
different
opportunities”
for
Carlsbad.
The
chart
below
depicts
the
strong
opinion
that
there
is
a
need
to
diversify
future
marketing
efforts.
5%
40%
55%
Should
the
current
core
visitor
remain
our
target
market?
This
is
our
market,
we
should
go
aler
this
and
only
this.
This
market
smll
has
potenmal
to
be
tapped,
but
there
are
others
out
there
to
explore.
This
market
is
coming
already,
lets
find
new
and
different
opportunimes.
■
■
■
Do you want to see Carlsbad marketed on
its own?
Answered: 20 Skipped: 0
[
yes
no
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
13
Regional
Targets
SAG
also
asked
stakeholders
about
regional
targets
and
what
areas
they
thought
should
be
pursued
to
increase
tourism
results.
According
to
the
survey,
stakeholders
felt
that
the
following
locations
were
the
top
priorities
for
regional
marketing:
¥ Southern
California
(drive
in)
¥ Northern
California
¥ Arizona
and
Mountain
States
¥ Mexico
There
was
consistent
feedback
and
survey
responses
that
supported
the
“drive
in”
Southern
California
market
was
the
highest
priority.
According
to
the
latest
Visitor
Profile
Study
conducted
by
the
SDTA,
nearly
70%
of
the
current
visitors
are
driving
to
Carlsbad.
In
addition
to
these
four
core
areas,
stakeholders
also
felt
that
there
were
new
opportunities
in
a
geographically
larger
space
including
Texas,
Colorado,
Washington,
Nevada,
and
Utah.
Target
Market
Segment
Stakeholders
expressed
strong
interest
in
finding
new
target
markets,
as
55%
of
respondents
said
“let’s
find
new
and
different
opportunities
in
addition
to
this
market.”
Stakeholders
were
asked
to
suggest
target
market
segments
they
believed
were
opportunities
for
Carlsbad
above
and
beyond
the
current
target
of
families
with
children
under
12.
Stakeholders
suggested
multiple
new
target
market
segments.
Repeated
suggestions
included
the
theme
of
childless
households
including
older
and
younger
demographics.
Specific
groups
included:
retirees,
young
couples,
business
travelers,
groups
and
conventions.
The
current
geographical
markets
and
stakeholder
suggested
markets
are
depicted
above.
Gold
–
Current
Markets
Blue
–
Stakeholder
Suggestions
Carlsbad
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
14
Attractions
Carlsbad
has
a
multitude
of
attractions
and
entertainment
options
for
visitors
coming
to
the
area.
Stakeholders
were
asked
to
rank
the
attractions
that
came
out
of
the
focus
groups.
The
results
indicated
that
LEGOLAND
and
the
Beach
are
Carlsbad’s
top
attractions
according
to
hospitality
and
tourism
stakeholders.
Golf
rounded
out
the
top
three,
followed
by
recreational
activities,
shopping,
watersports
and
relaxation
and
wellness.
This
response
indicated
an
opportunity
to
develop
new
experiences
and
or
potentially
enhance
current
Carlsbad
visitor
options.
Marketing
Carlsbad
is
currently
utilizing
digital
media,
social
media
and
email
marketing
as
the
primary
vehicles
to
promote
the
destination.
Carlsbad’s
tourism
and
hospitality
stakeholders
reiterated
that
choice
and
expressed
a
high
level
of
support
for
digital
media
marketing
and
well
as
social
media
and
public
relations
through
editorial
content.
This
effort
is
reinforced
by
the
2013
SDTA
Visitor
Profile
Study,
which
states
that
85%
of
those
surveyed
utilized
the
internet
as
their
information
source
for
travel
to
Carlsbad.
0
2
4
6
8
Top
AVracWons
0%
50%
100%
Digital
Media
Social
Media
PR/Editorial
TV
Advermsing
Email
Markemng
Print
Advermsing
MarkeWng
Vehicles
Over
80%
of
the
stakeholders
rated
Digital
Media
as
an
important
vehicle
in
future
tourism
marketing
efforts.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
15
Funding
Stakeholders
felt
strongly
that
the
level
of
funding
for
marketing
Carlsbad
as
a
destination
is
not
enough
to
compete
in
the
Southern
California
tourism
marketplace.
Currently
Visit
Carlsbad
has
a
budget
of
$755,500
for
Fiscal
Year
2015.
Over
85%
of
the
tourism
industry
in
Carlsbad
want
to
see
more
funding
for
marketing
and
of
those,
over
50%
would
support
a
new
model
for
marketing
financially
if
they
could
be
involved
in
the
process.
This
is
a
further
indication
of
the
strong
level
of
stakeholders’
desired
engagement
in
planning
for
Visit
Carlsbad’s
future.
The
additional
message
was
the
interest
in
a
new
plan
as
part
of
the
support
for
more
funding.
Stakeholder
Feedback
Conclusions
Based
on
the
tourism
industry
stakeholders’
feedback
in
focus
groups,
phone
calls
and
the
survey,
SAG
has
drawn
the
following
conclusions:
1. Carlsbad’s
tourism
stakeholders
are
engaged
and
have
strong
interest
in
planning
for
the
destination’s
future.
2. Stakeholders
have
appreciated
the
regular
communication
and
updates
SAG
has
provided
and
would
like
to
see
ongoing
effective
communication
continue.
3. Stakeholders
believe
Carlsbad
is
a
true
destination
with
valuable
assets
to
promote.
4. Smart
development
and
growth
were
important
topics
for
stakeholders
who
felt
there
could
potentially
be
too
much
hotel
inventory
in
the
market
already.
5. Stakeholders
felt
the
purpose
of
Visit
Carlsbad
should
extend
past
broad
awareness
and
move
in
the
direction
of
measurable
increased
conversion.
6. Stakeholders
want
to
see
increased
reporting
from
Visit
Carlsbad
on
tracking
marketing
efforts
through
conversion.
7. Some
stakeholders
were
concerned
with
the
overall
ability
of
all
constituents
to
implement
and
execute
a
new
plan.
Stakeholder
participation
in
this
study
has
demonstrated
an
interest
in
engagement
in
the
future.
There
is
an
understanding
that
their
participation
in
the
implementation
of
a
new
direction
is
critical
for
its
success.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes
No
Do
you
believe
Carlsbad
has
enough
tourism
funding?
Almost
85%
of
the
stakeholder
respondents
felt
there
was
a
need
for
more
funding.
l I I I I I I I I I
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
16
Regional
Industry
Stakeholder
Survey
SAG
created
a
regional
perception
survey
to
better
understand
the
broader
business
community’s
thoughts
and
perceptions
of
Carlsbad
as
a
tourism
destination
within
the
greater
Southern
California
area.
The
regional
stakeholders
gave
valuable
feedback
on
how
the
perception
of
Carlsbad
currently
is
positioned
and
how
that
could
be
enhanced.
Regional
stakeholders
felt
informed
only
50%
of
the
time
about
tourism
events
and
activities
going
on
within
the
destination.
Most
of
these
stakeholders
are
getting
their
information
from
email
subscription
updates
and
word
of
mouth
as
well
as
social
media
and
informational
City
signage.
This
group
also
felt
there
could
be
more
done
to
keep
them
informed
through
increased
direct
mail
and
increased
use
of
social
media.
Regional
stakeholders
also
have
a
strong
influence
on
groups
who
visit
Carlsbad
and
over
80%
of
respondents
had
referred
business
to
stay
in
Carlsbad.
Regional
stakeholders
had
positive
things
to
say
about
Carlsbad
and
their
referrals
received
strong
positive
feedback
about
their
stays.
Regional
stakeholders
ranked
Carlsbad’s
assets
and
attractions
differently
than
the
industry
stakeholders,
most
notably
golf
fell
from
3rd
to
8th.
This
tells
us
that
while
Carlsbad
has
golf
opportunities,
there
is
enough
competition
in
the
market
that
it
is
not
a
top
of
mind
attraction
to
recommend
the
destination
as
one
of
the
top
three
primary
strengths.
0
2
4
6
8
10
Beaches
LEGOLAND
Dining
Special
Events
Recreamonal
Acmvimes
Resorts
Shopping
Golf
What
made
you
recommend
Carlsbad?
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
17
Referral
Platforms
Regional
stakeholders
also
utilized
multiple
sources
when
looking
into
and/or
booking
hotel
reservations
for
their
groups.
Most
used
individual
property
websites
and
third
party
search
engines
i.e.
Kayak,
Priceline,
Expedia,
etc.
Only
14%
used
Visit
Carlsbad’s
website
to
get
information.
This
was
an
indication
of
the
variety
of
options
available
when
making
a
hotel
reservation
and
the
potential
to
raise
awareness
of
the
Visit
Carlsbad
booking
engine.
Regional
stakeholders
provided
insight
into
how
the
destination
could
be
enhanced
through
additional
attractions
and
amenities.
Themes
from
regional
stakeholder
feedback
included
dining
and
entertainment,
recreation,
wine
and
beer
tours
and
sports
tournaments.
Additional
comments
included:
¥ “more
music
concerts”
¥ “upgrade
the
theatres
for
top
entertainment”
¥ “easier
access
for
food
along
the
beach”
¥ “meeting
space
in
one
location
for
more
than
1,500
people”
Regional
Stakeholder
Feedback
Conclusions:
The
regional
group
surveyed
perceived
Carlsbad
as
a
Southern
California
beach
destination
and
is
interested
in
continuing
to
refer
business
to
the
area.
They
are
looking
for
ways
to
engage
with
their
clients
and
improve
Carlsbad’s
visibility
among
its
competition
and
provide
an
enhanced
experience
for
their
visitors.
Regional
stakeholders
were
also
very
interested
in
future
development
decisions
and
believe
there
is
a
way
to
work
together
for
the
future
of
Carlsbad
as
a
destination.
Visit
Carlsbad
Website
14%
Individual
Property
Websites
36%
Search
Engines
36%
Other
14%
Referral
Sources
Visit
Carlsbad
Website
Individual
Property
Websites
Search
Engines
Other
■
■
■
■
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
18
Benchmarking
SAG
reviewed
with
stakeholders,
City
staff,
CTBID,
Visit
Carlsbad
staff,
and
others
the
competitive
and
comparable
destinations
to
profile
and
study
during
this
process.
The
goal
was
to
use
a
sampling
of
destinations,
which
are
competitors
of
Carlsbad
and
have
similarities
in
their
visitor
experience.
SAG
studied
the
following
destinations
for
the
Tourism
Industry
Study:
1. Newport
Beach
2. Huntington
Beach
3. Laguna
Beach
4. Santa
Monica
5. Santa
Barbara
6. Monterey
County
7. Del
Mar
8. Coronado
9. Oceanside
SAG
researched
these
destinations
and
gathered
data
on
the
DMO
in
the
following
criteria:
¥ Destination
Property
Mix
¥ Number
of
hotel
rooms
by
type
¥ Annual
average
hotel
occupancy
rate
and
TOT
Revenue
¥ Tourism
marketing
spending
¥ Return
on
Investment
from
tourism
marketing
spending
¥ Target
markets
and
market
segmentation
¥ Destination
assets
¥ Funding
¥ Budgets
SAG’s
approach
to
gathering
data
included
interviewing
the
respective
DMO’s,
reviewing
annual
reports,
Smith
Travel
Research
reports
and
researching
available
data
and
reports.
On
the
following
pages
SAG
has
created
the
destination
profiles
of
each
competitive
destination.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
19
Destination
Profile:
Newport
Beach
Visit
Newport
Beach
Visit
Newport
Beach
is
a
DMO
under
contact
by
the
City
of
Newport
Beach.
It
is
a
membership-‐based
organization
operating
within
a
Business
Improvement
District
with
19
staff
members
and
23
board
of
directors
representing
hotels,
restaurants,
resorts,
marketing
&
travel
firms,
entertainment,
and
fashion.
Annual
DMO
Revenue:
FY
15:
$4,350,841*
*Projected
Annual
Budget:
FY
15:
$3,332,841
Budget
:
Rooms
Ratio
About
$1,388.10
TOT
Annual
Collection:
$16,400,000
-‐
2013
Budget
Breakdown
Not
provided
Leisure
Research
¥ 79.2%
of
survey
respondents
who
visited
in
last
2
years
visited
for
leisure.
Of
those
52.3%
came
for
vacation
and
26.9%
came
to
visit
friends
and
family.
10.8%
came
for
personal
reasons
and
7.7%
came
for
business.
¥ The
average
survey
respondent
stayed
3.7
days
and
3.2
nights
in
Newport
Beach.
Markets
from
a
greater
distance
stay
up
to
a
week.
¥ During
their
ideal
trip
to
Newport
Beach,
respondents
would
most
likely
stay
in
commercial
lodging,
such
as
a
hotel
(61.4%)
or
resort
hotel
(37.7%).
39.2
percent
would
stay
overnight
in
a
motel
(23.9%)
or
inn
(15.3%).
Funding
Structure
Visit
Newport
Beach
is
funded
primarily
by
the
city
through
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
(TOT),
as
well
as
through
a
Tourism
Business
Improvement
District
(TBID)
and
private
sector
membership
dues
from
the
hospitality
industry
or
other
related
businesses.
Funding
Sources
¥ TOT
–
10%
(City
collection
rate)
¥ TBID
–
2%
assessment
¥ Membership
dues
Visitor
Services
Includes
a
Visitor
Center
with
visitor
guides,
maps,
directions,
and
information
on
activities
and
attractions
in
Newport
Beach.
Online
Service
Includes
digital
visitor
guide,
online
maps,
and
a
mobile
app.
There
is
also
a
booking
engine
for
hotels,
attractions,
flights,
and
car
services.
Listings
by
multiple
areas
of
interest,
holidays,
and
regions.
Custom
group
packages
are
available
upon
inquiry.
Target
Audiences
The
demographic
profile
of
Newport’s
domestic
traveler:
¥ They
primarily
reside
in
state
(75%)
¥ Affluent
(49%
have
an
annual
household
income
of
over
75K)
¥ Mature
(56%
are
over
45
years
old)
¥ Married
(68%)
¥ White
or
Asian
¥ Over
one
in
four
of
these
travelers
have
children
living
at
home
(26%).
i
VI IT ort
~ ACH
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
20
Visit
Newport
Beach
Group
Sales
Efforts
Budget
Overview
Forecasted
Revenue:
$3,057,283
Operating
Expenses:
$1,392,585
Advertising:
$279,312
Conference/Group
Sales:
$1,366,800
Research:
$18,586
Strategy
¥ Recruit
experienced
sales
manager
with
contacts
in
the
region
¥ Work
with
TBID
hotels
to
create
equal
opportunities
to
host
events
and
showcase
hotels
¥ Rolling
out
of
new
conference
service
“tier”
structure,
which
differentiates
the
service
level
for
each
incoming
group,
which
will
actively
engage
each
client
at
least
13
months
before
their
group,
arrives
to
Newport
Beach.
¥ Develop
advertising
and
promotional
campaigns
that
are
on
brand
and
are
integrated
with
the
other
marketing
disciplines
in
order
to
encourage
submission
of
RFPs
and
convert
RFPs
into
confirmed
bookings.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
21
Destination
Profile:
Huntington
Beach
Visit
Huntington
Beach
Visit
Huntington
Beach
(Huntington
Beach
Marketing
and
Visitors
Bureau)
is
a
private,
non-‐profit,
non-‐
membership,
mutual
benefit
corporation.
Visit
Huntington
Beach
is
composed
of
19
Board
of
Directors
representing,
hotels,
event
planning,
music,
transportation
and
the
Chamber
of
Commerce,
in
addition
to
9
regular
staff
members.
Huntington
Beach’s
tagline
“Surf
City
USA”
has
a
strong
focus
on
surfing,
sports
and
an
active
lifestyle.
Budget
Overview
Annual
DMO
Revenue:
FY13:
$2,283,000
Annual
Budget:
FY13:
$2,535,000
Budget
:
Rooms
Ratio
About
$1,304
Annual
TOT
Collection
$7,700,000
-‐
2013
Budget
Breakdown
Revenues
Tourism
Occupancy
Tax
$763,000
Hotel/Motel
Business
Improvement
District
$1,519,000
Website/Interest/Other
$1,000
TOTAL
REVENUE
$2,283,000
Expenses
Media
Advertising
$397,000
Printed
Marketing
Collateral
$131,000
Collateral
Distribution
$36,000
Public
Relations
$246,000
Travel
Trade
$64,000
Website
$141,000
Event
Hosting
$4,000
Local
Partner/Community/Other
$55,000
Familiarization
Tours/Site
Visits
$28,000
Film
&
Sports
Commissions
$23,000
Trade
Shows
&
Travel
$140,000
Salaries
&
Benefits
$994,000
Administration
$276,000
TOTAL
EXPENSES
$2,535,000
Funding
Structure
The
City
of
Huntington
Beach
funds
the
Marketing
and
visitors
Bureau
with
2%
of
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
(TOT).
Funding
Sources
¥ TOT
–
10%
(City
collection
rate)
¥ BID
–
1%
assessment
Visitor
Services
New
welcome
center
at
International
Surfing
Museum.
The
Visitor
Information
Kiosk
is
staffed
by
paid
employees
of
Visit
Huntington
Beach
and
offers
the
following
amenities:
¥ Huntington
Beach
Visitor
Guides
and
Maps
¥ Huntington
Beach
Dining
Guides
¥ Downtown
Huntington
Beach
Historical
Walking
Tour
¥ City
Beach
Map
¥ Downtown
Huntington
Beach
maps
in
French,
German,
Japanese
and
Spanish
¥ Huntington
Beach
monthly
event
calendars
and
upcoming
event
flyers
¥ Coupons
for
local
businesses
and
attractions
¥ Transportation
information
¥ Restaurant
and
shopping
recommendations
¥ Southern
California
attraction
information
Online
Services
Include
¥ Surf
Report,
social
media,
blog,
virtual
tour,
listings,
visitors
guide,
newsletter,
maps,
booking
engine
for
hotels,
events,
and
packages,
weather,
and
additional
languages.
Target
Audiences
¥ Regional
Targets:
California
affluent
families
with
teenagers
¥ International
marketing
to
UK,
Ireland,
Germany,
Switzerland,
Canada,
Austria,
Australia,
and
New
Zealand.
¥ Staff
attends
domestic
trade
shows
and
events
for
support.
I fi'VISIT l ~TINGTO~ Ill ,eac ~ ~ SurfCituUSA
~
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
22
Destination
Profile:
Laguna
Beach
Visit
Laguna
Beach
Visit
Laguna
Beach
(VLB)
is
a
private,
non-‐profit,
member/partner
industry
association.
VLB
has
a
partnership
organization
structure.
Basic
partnerships
are
complimentary
for
visitor-‐serving
Laguna
Beach
businesses;
however,
there
are
also
paid
tiered
partnership
levels
based
on
marketing
goals
and
objectives.
Staffing
includes
5
members
and
9
Board
of
Directors
representing
private
hotels,
resorts,
and
hospitality
services.
Budget
Overview
Annual
DMO
Revenue:
FY13:
$5,761,200
Annual
Budget:
FY13:
$1,520,000
Budget:
Rooms
Ratio
About
$1,169
Annual
TOT
Collection:
$8,537,100
-‐
2013
Budget
Breakdown
Funding
Structure
VLB
receives
its
funding
from
the
Business
Improvement
District
(BID).
The
BID
charges
a
2%
hotel
tax
and
VLB
receives
half
of
that,
or
1%.
This
makes
up
80%
of
VLB
revenue.
VLB
does
not
receive
TOT
collected
by
the
City.
Funding
Sources
¥ BID
–
2%
assessment
Visitor
Services
Includes
Visitors
center,
mobile
app,
calendar
of
events,
highlighted
attractions,
trip
planner,
blog
and
online
booking
engine
provided
by
Travelocity
for
hotels,
flights,
and
rentals.
California
Welcome
centers,
John
Wayne
Airport,
Disneyland
Hotel,
and
car
rental
companies
distribute
VLB
official
visitors
guides,
dining
guides,
maps,
and
menu
books.
TOT
Revenue
Growth
In
FY
2011-‐12,
transient
occupancy
tax
revenue
increased
11%
compared
to
the
year
before
and
last
year
(FY
2012-‐13)
it
is
expected
to
grow
another
5.6%.
Target
Audiences
Almost
all
efforts
are
focus
on
Leisure
Services.
New
partnership
with
Orange
County
Visitors
Association
to
"reach
the
highly-‐affluent
China
market."
Orange
County
offices
in
Beijing
and
Shanghai
are
now
stocked
with
Laguna
Beach
information.
80%
8%
12%
2013
Revenue
DistribuWon
BID
Revenue
(Lodging)
Membership
Dues
Events,
Ad
Sales,
Booking
Revenue
83%
17%
2013
Expense
DistribuWon
Markemng
&
Public
Relamons
Administramon
26%
41%
15%
18%
2013
AdverWsing/PromoWonal
Expenditures
Internet
Website
Public
Relamons
Projects,
Tradeshows
Print
Collateral
Advermsing
(Print)
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
23
Destination
Profile:
Santa
Monica
Santa
Monica
Convention
&
Visitors
Bureau
The
SMCVB
is
a
private,
non-‐profit,
non-‐member
corporation.
There
are
14
staff
members
and
a
various
number
of
employees
at
4
visitor
centers.
The
Board
of
Directors
is
made
of
11
professionals
who
represent
hotels,
restaurants,
marketing
&
brokerage
firms,
and
the
City
of
Santa
Monica.
Budget
Overview
Annual
DMO
Revenue:
Estimated
$5,600,000*
*SMCVB
did
not
provide
the
DMO
revenue.
Figure
above
is
estimated
based
on
2012/2013
City
budget
data
and
approval
of
the
SMTMD
in
2012.
Annual
Budget:
FY13:
$2,600,000
Budget:
Rooms
Ratio
About
$696.12
Annual
TOT
Revenue:
TOT:
$42,300,000
Budget
Breakdown
Not
provided
Leisure
Research
¥ 7,298,857
visitors
in
2013.
¥ Average
length
of
stay:
1.56
days.
¥ Total
annual
visitor
spending:
$1.63
Billion
o 574
Million
on
shopping/gifts
o 345
Million
on
lodging
o 340
Million
on
meals
¥ Hotel
tax
revenue
to
city:
$42.3
Million
¥ Santa
Monica
jobs
supported
by
tourism:
12,908
Funding
Structure
The
SMCVB
is
funded
by
TOT
collected
by
the
City
and
the
Tourism
Marketing
District
fund
the
SMCVB.
Funding
Sources
¥ TOT
–
14%
(City
collection
rate)
¥ BID
–
$2
for
rooms
rented
at
$100
-‐
$200
–
$3
for
rooms
rented
at
$200
-‐
$300
–
$4
for
rooms
rented
at
$300
-‐
$400
Visitor
Services
Includes
a
Visitor
Center
with
visitor
guides,
maps,
directions,
and
information
on
activities
and
attractions
in
Santa
Monica.
Online
Services
Includes
digital
visitor
guide,
online
maps,
and
e-‐
newsletters.
There
is
also
a
booking
engine
for
hotels,
attractions,
flights,
and
car
services.
Visitor
Profile
2013
¥ 53%
International
¥ 32%
U.S.
Resident
(Non-‐California)
¥ 14%
California
Resident
¥ 64%
Visit
for
Leisure
¥ Median
Household
Income:
$86,500
¥ Average
daily
visitor
spending
per
person:
$143
Marketing
Efforts
¥ $2.6
million
marketing
budget
o Focus
on
international
travelers,
who
accounted
for
63
percent
of
the
$1.53
billion
spent
by
visitors
to
Santa
Monica
in
2012.
¥ Targets
a
specific
type
of
traveler
who
is
comfortable
getting
around
by
foot,
bike
or
public
transit
and
who
is,
in
general,
drawn
to
Santa
Monica’s
healthy
lifestyle.
¥ Primarily
digital
marketing
efforts
domestically.
¥ Hired
full
time
reps
in
Australia,
Brazil
and
England.
Xlt1lamoni ca
COOV811xln & 't\Sllors tuea
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
24
Santa
Monica
Group
Sales
Efforts
Services
Available:
¥ Personalized
Meeting
Planners
¥ Hotel
Suggestions
¥ Group
Dining
Leads
¥ Team-‐building
¥ Event
Planning
¥ Group
volleyball
tournaments,
bike
tours,
etc.
¥ Request
for
publications
Strategy
¥ The
SMCVB
strongly
focuses
on
Leisure
Sales
¥ Most
Group
Sales
are
handled
via
inquiry
over
the
phone
or
an
online
RFP
Meeting
Planner
Fact
Sheet
Sales
Tax
9.25%
Room
Tax
14%
No.
of
Hotels
36
No.
of
Hotels
with
Meeting
Space
14
No.
of
Hotel
Rooms
3,735
No.
of
Restaurants
428
Average
Room
Rate
$240
Largest
Event
Space
Barker
Hangar
(36,000
sq
ft)
Average
Daytime
Temp
in
Summer
75-‐85˚
Average
Daytime
Temp
in
Winter
65-‐75˚
Distance
from
Downtown
Los
Angeles
13
miles
(21
km)
Travel
Time
to
Downtown
Los
Angeles
30
minutes
Distance
from
LAX
8
miles
(13
km)
Travel
Time
to
LAX
30
minutes
Average
Taxi
Fare
from
LAX
to
Santa
Monica
$35
North
of
I-‐10
$30
South
of
I-‐10
Average
Bus
Fare
from
LAX
to
Santa
Monica
$1
Average
Shuttle
Fare
from
LAX
to
Santa
Monica
$20-‐$30
Nearest
Golf
Course
Penmar
Golf
Course
(2
miles/3.2
km)
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
25
Destination
Profile:
Santa
Barbara
Visit
Santa
Barbara
(VSB)
VSB
is
governed
by
the
Santa
Barbara
City
Council,
which
is
composed
of
a
Mayor
and
six
Council
Members.
VSB
is
membership-‐based.
Members
receive
benefits
such
as
website
and
publication
promotion,
referrals,
access
to
VSB
member
networking
events,
newsletters,
and
access
to
national
&
local
market
research.
Budget
Overview
Annual
DMO
Revenue:
Figures
not
provided
Annual
Budget:
Adopted
FY14:
$4,000,000
Budget:
Rooms:
$153.38
Annual
TOT
Revenue:
$16,821,995
–
2013
Budget
Breakdown
Not
provided
Funding
Structure
Visit
Santa
Barbara
is
funded
through
an
annual
contract
with
the
City
and
through
a
BID.
Funding
Sources
¥ TOT
–
12%
(City
collection
rate)
¥ BID
–
$0.50
rooms
rented
at
less
than
$100
–
$1
for
rooms
rented
at
$100
-‐
$150
–
$1.50
for
rooms
rented
at
$150
-‐
$200
–
$2
for
rooms
rented
at
$200
or
more
Visitor
Services
Includes
a
Visitor
Center
with
visitor
guides,
maps,
directions,
various
brochures,
and
travel
listings.
Online
Services
Includes
digital
visitor
guide,
e-‐newsletters,
a
calendar
of
events,
special
offers,
easy
to
success
social
media,
referrals,
and
membership
login.
Booking
engine
for
hotels,
resorts,
and
campgrounds.
Visitor
Profile
About
2,000
collected
surveys
showed
the
below
information:
¥ Female
(58%)
¥ Caucasian
(72%)
¥ Married
(53%)
¥ Mid-‐life
(avg.
age
48
years).
¥ The
average
household
income
is
$119,428.
¥ The
Los
Angeles
-‐
Riverside
-‐
Orange
County
metropolitan
statistical
area
(MSA)
is
by
far
the
largest
feeder
market
for
tourism
to
the
Santa
Barbara
South
Coast
(50%
of
all
respondents),
¥ Followed
by
the
San
Francisco
-‐
Oakland
-‐
San
Jose
MSA
(8%).
¥ 4
percent
of
visitors
reside
in
the
San
Diego
MSA.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
26
Destination
Profile:
Monterey
County
Monterey
County
Convention
&
Visitors
Bureau
The
Monterey
County
CVB
is
governed
by
a
Board
of
Directors
(30),
an
Executive
Committee
(5)
and
other
committees
to
aid
in
sales
and
marketing
initiatives
for
the
destination.
Membership
includes
businesses
in
the
lodging,
hospitality,
entertainment
and
recreation
industries.
Budget
Overview
Annual
Revenue:
FY12-‐13:
$6,002,342
Annual
Budget:
FY23-‐13:
$5,152,450
Budget:
Rooms
Ratio:
About
$429
Annual
TOT
Revenue:
$40,000,000
–
2013
Budget
Breakdown
Funding
Structure
The
MCCVB
is
funded
through
a
partnership
with
Monterey
County
and
the
listed
in
the
below
chart.
Funding
Sources
¥ TOT
–
10.5%
(County
collection
rate)
¥ BID/HID
–
1%
assessment
per
participating
jurisdiction
¥ Membership
dues
Visitor
Services
Includes
brochures,
maps,
and
a
TV
slideshow.
Online
Services
Extensive
social
media
integration,
listings,
hotel
booking
engine,
calendar
of
events,
blog,
digital
travel
guide,
photos,
videos,
desktop
wallpapers,
webcams
and
an
eNewsletter.
Monterey
County
CVB
2013-‐2014
Budget
REVENUE
Jurisdiction
Revenue
Monterey
County
998,728
City
of
Monterey
992,179
City
of
Carmel-‐by-‐the-‐Sea
125,987
City
of
Pacific
Grove
83,228
City
of
Seaside
61,188
City
of
Marina
42,000
City
of
Salinas
47,799
Sand
City
2,000
City
of
Del
Rey
Oaks
1,000
Sub
Total
$2,354,109
TID/HID
Revenue
Monterey
County
778,983
City
of
Monterey
1,897,413
City
of
Carmel-‐by-‐the-‐Sea
263,224
City
of
Salinas
170,881
City
of
Seaside
214,221
City
of
Pacific
Grove
193,145
City
of
Marina
139,262
Sub-‐Total
TID/HID
$3,657,128
Private
Revenue
$302,370
TOTAL
REVENUE
$6,313,607
Monterey
County
CVB
2013-‐2014
Budget
EXPENSE
Marketing
Communications
3,339.442
Brand
Launch
1,500,000
Media
Relations
200,000
Talent
&
Marketing
Initiatives
1,519,942
Group
Sales
2,368,152
Trade
Shows
&
Mission
265,000
Client
Events
115,000
Trade
Media
500,000
FAMs
&
Sponsorships
135,000
Third
Party
Partnerships
130,000
Sales
Initiatives
&
Talent
1,223,152
Membership
107,288
Visitor
Services
438,236
Administration
799,803
TOTAL
EXPENSE
$7,052,921
J
MO NT ER EY.
I U l I I P
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
27
Monterey
County
Group
Sales
Efforts
Group
Sales
Info
Points
–
Facilities
¥ Monterey
hotel
owners
approved
a
plan
to
tax
themselves
to
pay
for
the
$32M
renovation
of
the
Monterey
Conference
Center
(MCC).
¥ MCC
has
41K
sq.
ft.
meeting
space
&
can
hold
1,700
guests.
¥ 28
Golf
Courses
¥ Also
hosts:
8K
sq.ft.
Sunset
Center
¥ 32K
sq.ft.
Fair
&
Event
Center
¥ 13K
sq.ft.
Salinas
Sports
Complex.
Group
Sales
Partnership
Initiatives
2014
Monterey
has
always
benefited
from
a
high
level
of
collaboration
with
community
stakeholders.
In
the
coming
year
collaboration
will
advance
exponentially
through:
¥ Introduction
of
the
Monterey
Room
Night
Index
(RNI),
an
industry
trend-‐setting
measurement
tool
¥ Involvement
in
sales
program
development,
execution
and
evaluation
from
RNI
participants
¥ Yielding
Return
on
Experience
(ROE)
with
the
creation
of
the
Strategic
Client
Services
team
which
will
utilize
the
power
of
extraordinary
service
as
a
competitive
differentiator
¥ Focused
development
of
partnerships
with
third
party
companies
such
as
HelmsBriscoe
and
ConferenceDirect.
Budget
Monterey
County
CVB
Goals
by
fiscal-‐year
end
(June
30,
2014)
GROUP
SALES
GOALS
New
Business
Leads
460
Room
Night
Index
100%
RevPAR
Third
in
Comp
Set
Marketing/Communications
Unaided
Brand
Awareness
82%
Intent
to
Visit
32%
Advertising
Effectiveness
3.8
Score
Earned
Media
$34,500,000
Facebook
Fans
43,750
Twitter
Followers
9,775
Website
Website
Visits
1,114,9092
Page
Impressions
4,011,372
Referrals
to
Stakeholder
Pages
328,224
Visitor
Database
40,820
Membership
Member
Retention
85%
Visitor
Services
Visitor
Center
Inquiries
123,000
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
28
Destination
Profile:
Del
Mar
Del
Mar
Tourism
Business
Improvement
District
(TBID)
The
TBID
is
composed
of
5
Board
Members,
all
representing
hotels.
In
the
last
two
years
the
public
and
stakeholders
in
Del
Mar
have
become
frustrated
and
have
demanded
additional
transparency
in
the
organization.
“Dream
Del
Mar”
was
recently
created
out
of
the
TBID
and
launched
a
new
website.
Budget
Overview
Annual
Revenue:
Figure
not
provided
Annual
Budget:
FY
13:
$
$185,000
Budget:
Rooms
Ratio
About
$678
Annual
TOT
Revenue:
$1,934,020
-‐
2013
Budget
Breakdown
Not
provided
Group
Sales
Efforts
According
to
the
website
Dream
Del
Mar
is
focused
on
group
meetings
and
events.
They
leverage
the
San
Diego
airport
and
ability
to
be
in
and
out
of
the
big
city
quickly
They
promote
six
hotels
with
meeting
space.
Specifics
of
those
properties
are
not
listed
on
the
organization’s
website.
Structure
Del
Mar
mandates
a
1%
assessment
on
overnight
stays
at
lodging
facilities
within
the
district’s
boundaries.
Funding
Sources
¥ BID
–
1%
assessment
Organization
Stats:
Dream
Del
Mar
recently
launched
marketing
and
branding
campaign
along
with
new
tourism
website
in
May
2013.
Del
Mar
“Your
California
Dream”
campaign
launched
in
April
2013.
City
Council
and
stakeholders
have
been
dissatisfied
with
reporting
from
the
organization.
According
to
recent
articles
the
City’s
tourism
efforts
include
the
below:
¥ $213,000
for
efforts
including
marketing,
web
development,
photography,
direct
mail
and
administrative
costs.
¥ About
$30,000
is
set
aside
for
streetscape
oeL mar
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
29
Destination
Profile:
Coronado
Coronado
Tourism
Improvement
District
(CTID)
The
CTID
was
established
to
fund,
implement
and
measure
strategies
that
promote
Coronado
as
a
year-‐round
destination
for
visitors
from
across
the
bridge
and
across
the
country.
Specifically,
the
CTID
works
to
improve
occupancy
in
Coronado
hotels
and
as
a
by-‐product,
the
vitality
of
our
community.
Off-‐
season
growth
is
the
primary
focus
of
the
Advisory
Board.
Budget
Overview
Annual
Revenue:
FY13:
$546,530
Annual
Budget:
FY14:
$545,000
Budget:
Rooms
Ratio
About
$230
Annual
TOT
Revenue:
$10,366,000
-‐
2013
Budget
Breakdown
Not
provided
in
full
¥ $196,674
national
advertising
budget
Funding
Structure
The
CTID
is
funded
by
a
.5%
guest
assessment
at
hotels
with
over
ninety
(90)
rooms.
No
funding
comes
from
the
City
of
Coronado,
local
businesses,
residents
or
the
State
of
California.
The
CTID
does
not
fundraise,
pursue
grants
or
accept
donations.
Funding
Sources
¥ BID
–
0.5%
assessment
Visitor
Services
Includes:
¥ Visitor
Center
¥ Digital
Visitor
Guide
¥ Online
Map
¥ Mobile
App.
Partnership
The
$328,000
partnership
with
San
Diego
Tourism
Authority
in
FY13
has
resulted
in:
¥ $138,843
in
added-‐value
(bonus)
media
from
precise
negotiation
¥ 266
million
impressions
obtained
from
hosting
press
and
media
outreach
¥ 339,413
page
views
from
media
campaigns
(first
9
months
of
partnership)
Target
Audiences
Leisure
guests
typically
between
25-‐54
in
age
¥ Average
household
income
of
$110,000
or
more
¥ Residing
in
LA,
Orange
County,
Phoenix
and
San
Diego
¥ Mostly
available
to
visit
Coronado
outside
of
summer
¥ Guests
with
an
appreciation
for
resort
accommodations
A BRIDGE AWAY
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
30
Destination
Profile:
Oceanside
Visit
Oceanside
Visit
Oceanside
is
a
membership-‐based
destination
marketing
organization.
Staffing
includes
4
Members
on
the
Executive
Committee
representing
major
hotels.
Board
of
Directors
represent
LEGOLAND,
resorts,
restaurants,
and
the
City
of
Oceanside.
There
are
also
7
Community
Liaisons.
Budget
Overview
Annual
Revenue:
FY12-‐13:
$691,800
Annual
Budget:
FY12-‐13:
$691,800
Budget:
Rooms
Ratio
About
$370
Annual
TOT
Revenue:
$4,100,000
–
2012
Budget
Breakdown
Percentages
provided
in
chart
below
Funding
Structure
Visit
Oceanside
is
primarily
funded
through
the
Oceanside
Tourism
Marketing
District
and
through
annual
membership
fees
from
$330-‐$5,000.
Visit
Oceanside
does
not
receive
any
of
the
TOT
collected
by
the
City.
Funding
Sources
¥ BID
–
1.5%
assessment
¥ Membership
dues
Visitor
Services
California
Welcome
Center
in
Oceanside.
State,
regional,
and
local
info
available.
Hotel
reservations
and
discounts
available.
Online
Services
Includes
blog,
social
media,
visitors
guide,
calendar,
and
booking
engine
for
lodging.
Target
Audiences
¥ 6k+
citywide
event
nights
generated
last
FY
¥ 200k
expenses
in
ad
campaigns
and
60k
in
public
relations
FY13
Group
Business
Highlights
¥ Group
Leads:
39
¥ Meeting
&
Event
Leads:
17
¥ Groups
Booked:
10
¥ Room
Nights
Generated
(groups):
3,318
¥ Room
Nights
Generated
(citywide
events):
6,500
2012 -2013 YEAR END REPORT
11%
FUNDING SOURCES
4%
84%
OTMD
■ Aeta11/Private
Sponsorships
San Diego
County
VISITOR SPENDING
1% □ lodging
■Meals
■ Attractions
a Transportabon
II Shopping
■Groceries
■Rec.
Equipment/Supplies
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
BUDGET ALLOCATION
5%
Marketing/
Sales
51 9(, ■ Personnel
'10perat10ns
■ Reserves
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 2004 -2012
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0 ~
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
□ Hotel Tax
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
31
Benchmarking
Results
After
compiling
all
of
the
data
in
the
profiles
above,
SAG
compared
all
the
information
gathered
to
Visit
Carlsbad.
Below
are
charted
examples
of
how
Carlsbad
compares
to
the
competitive
destinations
studied.
*Please
note
not
all
destinations
provided
information
for
each
question
and
the
charts
below
reflect
the
available
data.
Of
the
comparable
destinations,
Carlsbad
is
a
medium
sized
destination
with
30+
properties
in
the
market.
Comparing
the
hotel
properties
that
report
to
STR,
Carlsbad
is
the
fourth largest destination
behind Monterey County, Santa Barbara and Santa Monica, respectively.
Class
Definitions
according
to
STR:
Market
Class
––Hotel
classes
are
scaled
through
a
method
by
which
branded
hotels
are
grouped
based
on
the
actual
average
room
rates.
Independent
hotels
are
assigned
a
class
based
on
the
ADR,
relative
to
that
of
the
chain-‐
affiliated
hotels
in
its
geographic
proximity.
The
chain
scale
segments
are:
•
Luxury
–
example
Ritz
Carlton
•
Upper
Upscale
–
example
Hilton
•
Upscale
–
example
Hyatt
Place
•
Upper
Midscale
–
example
Clarion
•
Midscale
–
example
La
Quinta
•
Economy
–
example
Days
Inn
12
24
10
8
1
1
8
13
24
2
3
4
2
7
24
4
1
4
4
1
6
7
8
4
4
7
8
1
4
9
12
2
1
2
1
8
9
14
14
1
2
2
2
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Santa
Barbara
Monterey
Santa
Monica
HunWngton
Beach
Laguna
Beach
Newport
Beach
Del
Mar
Carlsbad
Number
of
ProperWes
by
Type
Economy
Midscale
Upper
Midscale
Upper
Upscale
Upscale
Luxury
■
■
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
■
■
■
■
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
32
SAG
also
found
that
more
than
half
of
Carlsbad’s
properties
are
in
the
Upscale,
Upper
Upscale,
and
Luxury
classification.
This
also
indicated
Carlsbad’s
inventory
is
the
third
largest
in
the
upscale
market
of
destinations
studied.
The
breadth
of
property
types
in
Carlsbad
creates
an
opportunity
to
confirm
that
the
future
marketing
efforts
are
focused
on
a
spectrum
of
market
segments.
In
looking
at
destinations
as
a
whole,
SAG
found
that
Carlsbad
has
more
hotel
rooms
than
most
comparable
and
competitive
destinations.
Currently,
Carlsbad
has
4,057
rooms
in
the
market
with
3,994
of
properties
that
report
to
STR.
In
the
next
year,
Carlsbad
will
have
three
new
hotels
in
the
market
bringing
the
total
to
4,399
rooms
in
the
City.
This
number
makes
it
the
second
largest
destination
in
terms
of
hotel
rooms
in
the
competitive
set.
594
1165
2070
3201
3534
3567
4399
6114
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Del
Mar
Laguna
Beach
Hunmngton
Beach
Newport
Beach
Santa
Barbara
Santa
Monica
Carlsbad
Monterey
Ho
t
e
l
R
o
o
m
s
Number
of
Hotel
Rooms
Economy
Midscale
Upper Mldscale
Upper Upscale
Upscale
luxury
Carlsbad
20%
17"
Newport Beach
l2% ""
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
Monterey County Huntington Beach Santa Barbara
211'
16"
129'
Del Mar Laguna Beach Santa Monica
39"'
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
33
Budgets
and
funding
are
critical
components
for
Destination
Management
Organizations
(DMO)s
to
make
an
impactful
difference
in
marketing
the
destination.
While
the
size
and
scale
of
the
operation
and
destination
all
vary
and
impact
the
budget
number,
SAG
decided
to
look
at
the
budgets
side
by
side.
While
this
is
not
an
apples
to
apples
comparison,
it
does
begin
to
exhibit,
based
on
the
charts
above,
how
under-‐funded
Visit
Carlsbad
is
as
a
marketing
organization.
Carlsbad
has
the
third
smallest
DMO
budget
of
the
destinations
studied.
In
order
to
make
a
true
comparison
between
budgets
and
levels
of
funding,
SAG
studied
those
budgets
by
contrasting
how
many
hotel
rooms
are
in
each
respective
destination.
This
analysis
provides
insight
to
how
the
level
of
funding
is
allocated
per
room.
In
this
regard,
Carlsbad
is
spending
the
least
amount
per
hotel
room
at
$174
per
room.
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
Oceanside
Coronado
Carlsbad
Santa
Barbara
Laguna
Beach
Hunmngton
Beach
Santa
Monica
Newport
Beach
Monterey
Budgets
in
Millions
DMO
Budgets
$174
$230
$370
$429
$678
$696
$1,131
$1,169
$1,304
$1,388
$-‐
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
Carlsbad
Coronado
Oceanside
Monterey
Del
Mar
Santa
Monica
Santa
Barbara
Laguna
Beach
Hunmngton
Beach
Newport
Beach
Budget
&
Total
Rooms
RaWo
I I I
, I ·1
, I
, I
, I
--i -•
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
34
As
noted
above,
Carlsbad
has
the
second
largest
inventory
of
hotel
rooms
of
the
destination
locations
studied.
In
comparing
occupancy
of
competitive
destinations,
Carlsbad
has
the
second
lowest
average
annual
occupancy
rate
at
68%
compared
to
Laguna
Beach,
which
is
highest
at
75%
annually.
*Not
all
cities
in
the
original
research
set
were
able
to
provide
Average
Annual
Occupancy.
A
key
component
of
DMO
revenue
and
sustainable
funding
is
the
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
(TOT)
leveraged
on
hotel
room
nights.
This
TOT
is
handled
differently
in
each
destination.
The
first
chart
below
illustrates
the
rate
by
which
the
City/County
collects
TOT
per
transient
room.
67%
68%
71%
73%
75%
62%
64%
66%
68%
70%
72%
74%
76%
Monterey
Carlsbad
Santa
Barbara
Newport
Beach
Laguna
Beach
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
O
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
Average
Annual
Occupancy*
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
TOT
CollecWon
Rate
to
City
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
35
The
second
chart
below
illustrates
the
level
of
support
from
the
same
TOT
that
the
City/County
is
allocating
back
to
the
DMO.
Competitive
destinations
receive
between
.5%-‐18%
of
the
TOT
collected
by
the
City.
Visit
Carlsbad
does
not
receive
any
TOT
funding.
*TOT
percentage
varies
annually.
Figure
above
represents
2013
adopted
budget
percentage.
**Not
all
cities
in
the
original
research
set
were
able
to
provide
this
data
SAG
also
studied
hotel
Revenue
per
Available
Room
(RevPAR)
to
create
another
comparison
and
measure
how
Carlsbad
is
doing
based
on
those
in
the
comparable
set.
Carlsbad
averages
$113
in
RevPAR
compared
to
its
competitors
who
average
close
to
$160
or
better
year
round.
The
gap
in
comparable
RevPAR
is
an
indicator
of
the
potential
to
increase
overall
visitors
as
well
as
the
hotel
rates
through
targeted
marketing
designed
to
increase
demand
in
the
shoulder
periods.
If
Carlsbad
was
to
achieve
the
average
RevPar
for
the
competitive
set
($166)
that
would
represent
a
47%
increase
or
over
$8
million
in
increased
TOT.
SAG
has
laid
out
goals
for
growth
in
the
funding
section
of
this
report.
*Source
DMO
provided
data
**Not
all
cities
in
the
original
research
set
were
able
to
provide
hotel
RevPAR.
$113
$147
$167
$172
$177
$221
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Carlsbad
Newport
Beach
Monterey
Santa
Barbara
Hunmngton
Beach
Laguna
Beach
Hotel
Revenue
Per
Available
Room*
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Carlsbad
Coronado
Laguna
Beach
Santa
Monica**
Santa
Barbara**
Hunmngton
Beach
Newport
Beach
Percentage
of
TOT
Allocated
to
DMO*
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
36
SAG
reviewed
destinations
by
their
current
business
mix
of
transient
and
group
segments.
Of
the
destinations
studied,
the
largest
destination
group
mix
by
percentage
was
Newport
Beach
at
63%
transient
and
37%
group
and
the
smallest
was
Oceanside
at
80-‐20%
respectively.
Carlsbad
fell
in
line
with
the
majority
of
the
competition
at
75%
transient
and
25%
group.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
these
numbers
are
not
currently
tracked
by
Visit
Carlsbad.
The
Carlsbad
number
was
determined
based
on
Visit
Carlsbad
and
hotel
industry
feedback.
*Carlsbad’s
numbers
are
estimated
based
on
monthly
data
provided
by
Visit
Carlsbad.
Conclusion
–
Benchmarking
Carlsbad
is
situated
in
a
very
competitive
market.
All
of
the
destinations
studied
are
comparable
and
competitive
because
they
are
coastal,
California
beach
destinations,
mostly
suburban
and
within
a
2-‐3
hours
drive
of
a
major
California
city.
All
of
the
destinations
studied
have
a
significant
share
of
the
California
tourism
market
and
are
becoming
increasingly
popular.
Carlsbad
competes
directly
with
these
cities
and
is
positioned
to
improve
its
share
of
the
tourism
market
based
on
the
benchmarking
research
completed.
The
destinations
studied
all
experience
a
similar
seasonal
swing
between
the
summer
and
non-‐summer
months.
The
destinations
respective
marketing
organizations
are
all
thinking
critically
about
how
to
improve
return,
reach
more
visitors
and
connect
with
new
target
markets.
SAG
compared
destinations
on
key
areas
and
points
of
comparison
for
Visit
Carlsbad
and
believes
that
Carlsbad
has
an
opportunity
to
improve
its
position
in
the
market.
Overall,
Carlsbad
is
a
medium-‐sized
destination
with
a
year-‐round
population
of
about
110,000
within
40
square
miles
of
the
City.
The
City’s
tourism
assets
include
the
7
miles
of
coastline,
which
welcomes
over
2
million
visitors
each
year.
Of
the
competitive
destinations,
Carlsbad
is
one
of
the
largest
in
terms
70%
74%
80%
63%
75%
30%
26%
20%
37%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Santa
Barbara
Monterey
Oceanside
Newport
Beach
Carlsbad*
DesWnaWon
Visitor
Mix:
Transient
&
Group*
Transient
Group
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
■
■
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
37
of
year-‐round
population
and
square
miles.
The
competing
cities
were
typically
between
10-‐20
square
miles
and
had
a
smaller
year-‐round
population.
In
the
competing
destinations’
DMO
websites,
a
reoccurring
theme
of
community
was
expressed,
as
the
marketing
organization
believes
these
residents
are
important
aspects
of
why
tourists
repeatedly
visit
these
destinations.
With
a
smaller
community,
this
is
more
manageable,
however,
SAG
found
that
the
connection
to
the
community
above
and
beyond
the
stakeholders
was
important
to
the
competition.
Of
the
competitive
destinations
studied,
Carlsbad
is
the
third
lowest
DMO
in
terms
of
overall
funding.
Carlsbad
is
also
the
destination
with
the
second
highest
number
of
hotel
rooms
at
4,392
(including
the
three
new
properties
coming
into
the
market).
The
only
destination
with
more
hotel
rooms
is
Monterey
County,
with
over
6,000
rooms
and
includes
over
eight
contributing
municipalities.
These
statistics
were
important
in
comparing
the
level
of
funding
for
each
hotel
room.
In
making
a
clear
comparison,
SAG
created
ratios
for
the
total
budget
of
each
destination
and
the
number
of
hotel
rooms
in
each
respective
destination.
This
comparison
shows
that
Carlsbad
has
the
second
lowest
expenditure
per
hotel
room
at
$174.
The
highest
expenditure
per
room
is
$1,388
and
the
average
among
10
competitors
is
$659
per
room.
The
differences
in
levels
of
funding
reveals
that
not
only
do
the
competing
destinations
have
a
higher
level
of
funding,
but
are
drastically
outspending
Carlsbad
on
a
per
room
basis.
A
second
key
result
from
the
benchmarking
study
is
average
annual
occupancy.
Carlsbad
is
currently
averaging
68%
percent
occupied
annually.
Of
five
destinations,
the
annual
average
ranges
from
67%
to
75%
occupied.
Carlsbad
is
the
second
lowest
above
Monterey
County.
The
highest
average
was
75%
in
Laguna
Beach.
SAG
also
compared
the
Revenue
Per
Available
Room
(RevPAR)
for
these
competitive
destinations.
Carlsbad’s
average
RevPAR
is
$113
and
is
the
lowest
of
six
competitive
destinations.
The
average
RevPAR
among
six
destinations
is
$166
and
the
highest
RevPAR
is
$221
in
Laguna
Beach.
Carlsbad
has
a
healthy
mix
of
property
types,
however,
as
stated
above
it
has
more
hotel
rooms
than
much
of
the
competition.
This
level
of
availability
makes
it
important
to
create
and
cultivate
demand
from
the
market
in
order
for
the
destination
to
see
an
increase
in
occupancy
and
RevPAR.
Two
consistent
differences
in
the
structure
of
the
competitive
destinations
versus
Visit
Carlsbad
are
both
the
way
they
are
funded
and
the
way
they
are
governed.
All
of
the
competitive
destinations
receive
a
percentage
of
the
TOT
revenue
to
be
funneled
back
into
marketing
the
destination.
The
TOT
funding
in
competitive
destinations
shows
strong
support
for
the
organizations
on
behalf
of
the
respective
cities
and
allows
the
DMOs
to
compete
on
a
higher
level.
The
competitive
destinations
also
have
more
than
one
source
of
funding.
The
other
sources
include
assessments,
business
improvement
districts,
private
revenue,
event
sales
and
membership
dues.
As
shown
in
the
above
hotel
RevPAR
chart,
Carlsbad’s
average
annual
RevPAR
is
$113
compared
to
the
average
of
$166
across
the
competitive
destinations.
Carlsbad
could
attain
the
average
annual
RevPAR
number
over
time
with
the
recommended
changes
in
the
targeted
marketing
efforts
addressed
in
the
following
sections.
If
Carlsbad
set
a
target
of
reaching
$166
for
the
average
annual
RevPAR
over
5
years
(an
increase
of
$53
and
47%)
it
would
increase
the
TOT
collection
to
the
City
significantly.
A
47%
increase
in
TOT
would
be
an
additional
$8.4
million
to
the
City,
increasing
the
total
TOT
to
$26.4
million.
The
below
chart
illustrates
the
increases
in
both
TOT
(shown
in
orange)
and
the
average
annual
RevPAR
(shown
in
blue)
over
5
years
with
a
target
of
incrementally
increasing
both
respectively
by
6.6
percent
annually.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
38
If
Carlsbad
were
to
attain
the
average
RevPAR
of
$166,
the
TOT
collection
shown
above
supplies
an
additional
$8
million
dollars
to
the
City
of
Carlsbad.
SAG
believes
this
is
attainable
with
the
recommended
shifts
in
targeted
marketing
and
new
market
segments
over
the
next
five
years.
With
these
shifts
the
City
of
Carlsbad
will
see
increased
TOT
collection,
which
could
support
new
funding
mechanisms
for
Visit
Carlsbad
and
tourism
product
development.
In
addition
to
being
funded
differently,
many
of
the
organizations
are
overseen
by
one
board.
In
the
event
that
there
was
additional
funding
from
a
BID
or
TID,
the
DMO
did
not
report
to
that
board
and
the
budgeting
was
approved
by
the
DMO
board.
In
theory,
this
is
similar
to
the
Visit
Carlsbad
organization,
however,
SAG
has
found
redundancies
in
the
work
done
by
the
CTBID
board
and
the
Visit
Carlsbad
board.
The
most
effective
organizations
have
strong
oversight
by
one
streamlined
process
of
governance.
This
is
addressed
later
in
the
governance
section
of
this
report.
After
completing
in-‐depth
research
on
these
competitive
destinations,
SAG
believes
there
is
a
strong
opportunity
for
Carlsbad
to
grow
in
many
categories
and
see
a
higher
return
for
all
stakeholders.
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$50
$70
$90
$110
$130
$150
$170
$190
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Annual
TOT
CollecWon
in
Millions
Average
Annual
RevPAR
TOT
&
RevPAR
Five
Year
Trend
Average
Annual
RevPAR
TOT
Collecmon
■ ■
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
39
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis
SAG
partnered
with
Nielsen
to
conduct
a
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis
also
known
as
a
PRIZM
analysis
on
recent
Carlsbad
hotel
visitor
data.
Lifestyle
Segmentation
allows
SAG
to
review
the
types
of
visitors
who
have
recently
stayed
in
Carlsbad.
The
data
is
run
through
Nielsen’s
consumer
profile
database
and
is
broken
down
to
understand
consumer
behaviors,
income
levels,
travel
habits
and
more.
The
insights
gathered
from
this
segmented
data
allowed
SAG
to
understand
the
types
of
people
who
have
visited
and
where
they
are
coming
from.
This
will
inform
future
efforts
and
which
segments
will
create
the
highest
return
for
Carlsbad.
SAG
collected
hotel
data
from
seven
individual
hotel
properties
and
the
Visit
Carlsbad
ARES
booking
engine,
which
included
results
from
25
properties.
SAG
would
like
to
thank
the
Pelican
Cove
Inn,
Carlsbad
by
the
Sea
Resort
and
the
Grand
Pacific
Resorts
properties
for
submitting
data
for
this
analysis.
SAG
collected
over
50,000
anonymous
hotel
records
sorted
by
property,
address,
zip
code,
date
of
stay
and
lead
source.
These
categories
were
key
to
understanding
what
segments
come
to
Carlsbad,
when
they
come,
and
where
they
live.
This
data
allows
SAG
to
geocode
and
map
potential
segments,
which
are
target
markets
for
Carlsbad’s
future
growth.
Visit
Carlsbad
is
currently
targeting
its
marketing
effort
to
a
specific
segment
of
families
with
children
12
and
under
with
a
household
income
of
around
$87,000.
Utilizing
the
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis,
SAG
was
able
to
validate
when
these
families
are
coming
to
Carlsbad
and
explore
new
opportunities.
It
is
important
to
note
that
this
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis
did
not
include
hotel
records
from
the
most
family
oriented
hotel,
LEGOLAND
Resort.
Also,
Sheraton,
Hilton
properties,
Omni
and
the
Park
Hyatt
were
unable
to
provide
detailed
hotel
records.
While
the
reporting
would
have
been
enhanced
with
data
from
these
properties,
SAG
believes
that
the
data
gathered
provided
key
insight
because
these
properties
are
less
family
dominant,
especially
in
the
summer
months.
SAG
also
recommends
that
a
lifestyle
analysis
be
conducted
on
a
biannual
basis.
This
will
create
an
opportunity
for
more
participation
in
the
future.
The
hotels
that
have
participated
will
receive
an
individual
report
with
their
specific
market
segment
breakdown.
The
following
is
a
breakdown
of
the
top
market
segments
based
on
current
visitation
to
Carlsbad.
The
names
of
each
segment
are
provided
by
Neilson.
Top
Carlsbad
Segments
Families
SAG
believes
that
the
strongest
segment
of
Carlsbad’s
visitor
during
the
summer
season
is
families
with
children,
which
is
supported
by
the
zip
code
data
LEGOLAND
was
able
to
provide
from
LEGOLAND
Resort.
Family
travel
in
Carlsbad
is
strong
and
SAG
is
confident
that
this
market
is
returning
each
summer
to
enjoy
the
attractions
and
amenities
of
the
destination.
The
following
are
descriptions
of
the
The
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis
is
broken
out
into
66
segments
which
are
numbered
according
to
socioeconomic
rank
(which
takes
into
account
characteristics
such
as
income,
education,
occupation
and
home
value)
and
are
grouped
into
11
Lifestage
Groups
and
14
Social
Groups.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
40
family
segments
that
currently
visit
Carlsbad
in
the
summer
months.
Please
note
that
each
segment
that
is
listed
is
attached
to
a
broader
social
and
lifestage
group.
The
detailed
descriptions
of
these
can
be
found
in
the
appendix
of
this
report.
Upward
Bound
Upscale
Middle
Age
with
Children
More
than
any
other
segment,
Upward
Bound
appears
to
be
the
home
of
those
legendary
Soccer
Moms
and
Dads.
In
these
small
satellite
cities,
upscale
families
boast
dual
incomes,
college
degrees,
and
new
split
levels
and
colonials.
Residents
of
Upward
Bound
tend
to
be
kid
obsessed,
with
heavy
purchases
of
computers,
action
figures,
dolls,
board
games
bicycles
and
camping
equipment.
Social
Group:
08
–
Second
City
Society
Lifestage
Group:
05
–
Young
Accumulators
Demographic
Traits
¥ Urbanicity:
Second
City
¥ Income:
Upscale
-‐
Median
HH
Income
$86,901
¥ Income
Producing
Assets:
High
¥ Age
Range:
35-‐54
¥ Presence
of
Kids:
Household
with
Kids
¥ Homeownership:
Mostly
Owners
¥ Employment
Levels:
Management
¥ Education
Levels:
College
Graduate
¥ Ethnic
Diversity:
White,
Asian,
Hispanic,
Mix
Lifestyle
&
Media
Traits
¥ Order
from
zappos.com
¥ Vacation
at
national
parks
¥ Read
Outside
¥ Watch
America’s
Funniest
Home
Videos
¥ Drive
Mazda
SUV
Kids
&
Cul-‐de-‐sacs
Upper
Mid
Younger
with
Children
Upper-‐middle-‐class,
suburban,
married
couples
with
children
–
that’s
the
skinny
on
Kids
&
Cul-‐de-‐sacs,
an
enviable
lifestyle
of
large
families
in
recently
built
subdivisions.
With
a
high
rate
of
Hispanic
and
Asian
Americans,
this
segment
is
a
refuge
for
college-‐educated,
white-‐
collar
professionals
with
administrative
jobs
and
upper-‐middle-‐class
incomes.
Their
nexus
of
education,
affluence
and
children
translates
to
large
outlays
for
child-‐centered
products
and
services.
Social
Group:
05
–
The
Affluentials
Lifestage
Group:
05
–
Young
Accumulators
Demographic
Traits
¥ Urbanicity:
Suburban
¥ Income:
Upper
Mid
–
Median
HH
Income
$71,830
¥ Income
Producing
Assets:
Above
Average
¥ Age
Range:
25-‐44
¥ Presence
of
Kids:
Household
with
Kids
¥ Homeownership:
Mostly
Owners
¥ Employment
Levels:
Professional
¥ Education
Level:
College
Graduate
¥ Ethnic
Diversity:
White,
Black,
Asian,
Hispanic,
Mix
Lifestyle
&
Media
Traits
¥ Order
from
target.com
¥ Play
fantasy
sports
¥ Read
Parents
Magazine
¥ Watch
X
Games
¥ Drive
Honda
Odyssey
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
41
Non-‐Family
Segments
SAG
reviewed
the
highest
indexing
segments
for
both
summer
and
Shoulder
Seasons
that
were
not
families
and
not
part
of
the
current
target
market
in
order
to
determine
viable
opportunities
for
new
targets.
The
data
received
on
visitors
who
were
already
coming
to
Carlsbad
is
insightful
as
to
who
these
visitors
are
and
what
aspects
of
their
lives
might
fit
Carlsbad
in
the
future.
The
top
non-‐family
segments
were
a
high
percentage
of
the
visitors
during
the
shoulder
periods.
Below
are
the
top
non-‐family
segments:
Upper
Crust
Upper
Crust
Wealthy
Older
without
Children
The
nation's
most
exclusive
address,
Upper
Crust
is
the
wealthiest
lifestyle
in
America-‐a
haven
for
empty-‐nesting
couples
over
the
age
of
55.
No
segment
has
a
higher
concentration
of
residents
earning
over
$100,000
a
year
and
possessing
a
postgraduate
degree.
And
none
has
a
more
opulent
standard
of
living.
Social
Group:
04
–
Elite
Suburbs
Lifestage
Group:
08
–
Affluent
Empty
Nests
Demographic
Traits
¥ Urbanicity:
Suburban
¥ Income:
Wealthy–
Median
HH
Income
$110,117
¥ Income
Producing
Assets:
Millionaires
¥ Age
Range:
55+
¥ Presence
of
Kids:
Household
without
Kids
¥ Homeownership:
Home
Owners
¥ Employment
Levels:
Professional
¥ Education
Level:
Graduate
Plus
¥ Ethnic
Diversity:
White,
Asian,
Mix
Lifestyle
&
Media
Traits
¥ Shop
at
Saks
Fifth
Avenue
¥ Vacation
in
Europe
¥ Read
The
Atlantic
¥ Watch
Golf
Channel
¥ Drive
Lexus
LS
The
Upper
Crust
segment
visits
Carlsbad
in
both
the
Summer
Season
and
the
Shoulder
Season
of
September
to
March.
This
segment
was
20%
of
the
Shoulder
Season
visitor
compared
to
only
13%
of
those
visiting
in
the
Summer
Season.
This
data
shows
that
Carlsbad
should
be
targeting
non-‐
family
households
over
55
years
in
age
that
are
living
in
wealthy
suburban
areas.
This
empty
nest
segment
enjoys
recreational
activities
including
golf
and
sightseeing.
This
segment
has
disposable
income
for
high
end
shopping,
fine
dining
and
most
importantly
regular
travel.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
42
Movers
&
Shakers
Movers
&
Shakers
Wealthy
Older
without
Children
Movers
&
Shakers
is
home
to
America's
up-‐and-‐coming
business
class:
a
wealthy
suburban
world
of
dual-‐income
couples
who
are
highly
educated,
typically
between
the
ages
of
45
and
64,
and
without
children.
Given
its
high
percentage
of
executives
and
white-‐collar
professionals,
there's
a
decided
business
bent
to
this
segment:
members
of
Movers
&
Shakers
rank
near
the
top
for
owning
a
small
business
and
having
a
home
office.
Social
Group:
04
–
Elite
Suburbs
Lifestage
Group:
01
–
Midlife
Success
Demographic
Traits
¥ Urbanicity:
Suburban
¥ Income:
Wealthy–
Median
HH
Income
$101,517
¥ Income
Producing
Assets:
Elite
¥ Age
Range:
45-‐64
¥ Presence
of
Kids:
Household
without
Kids
¥ Homeownership:
Mostly
Owners
¥ Employment
Levels:
Management
¥ Education
Level:
Graduate
Plus
¥ Ethnic
Diversity:
White,
Asian,
Mix
Lifestyle
&
Media
Traits
¥ Shop
at
Nordstrom
¥ Play
tennis
¥ Read
Yoga
Journal
¥ Watch
NHL
Games
¥ Drive
Land
Rover
The
Movers
&
Shakers
segment
was
prevalent
in
both
the
Summer
Season
and
the
Shoulder
Season
of
September
through
March.
The
Movers
&
Shakers
segment
showed
a
strong
presence
in
the
Summer
Season
with
19%
of
the
visitor
mix
compared
to
3%
in
the
Shoulder
Season.
This
segment
as
described
above
is
a
wealthy,
highly
educated
couple,
without
children.
This
segment
is
active,
healthy
and
interested
in
recreational
activities.
This
segment
is
also
likely
to
have
a
high
level
disposable
income
because
they
are
childless.
The
presence
of
this
segment
in
the
summer
months
also
indicates
an
appreciation
for
quick
getaways
in
a
clean,
safe,
active
destination
like
Carlsbad.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
43
The
Cosmopolitans
The
Cosmopolitans
Upper
Mid
Older
Mostly
without
Children
Educated,
upper-‐midscale,
and
ethnically
diverse,
The
Cosmopolitans
are
urbane
couples
in
America's
fast-‐growing
cities.
Concentrated
in
a
handful
of
metros-‐-‐such
as
Las
Vegas,
Miami,
and
Albuquerque-‐-‐these
households
feature
older,
empty-‐nesting
homeowners.
A
vibrant
social
scene
surrounds
their
older
homes
and
apartments,
and
residents
love
the
nightlife
and
enjoy
leisure-‐intensive
lifestyles.
Social
Group:
01
–
Urban
Uptown
Lifestage
Group:
09
–
Conservative
Classics
Demographic
Traits
¥ Urbanicity:
Urban
¥ Income:
Upper
Mid–
Median
HH
Income
$58,313
¥ Income
Producing
Assets:
High
¥ Age
Range:
55+
¥ Presence
of
Kids:
Mostly
without
Kids
¥ Homeownership:
Home
Owners
¥ Employment
Levels:
White
Collar,
Mix
¥ Education
Level:
Graduate
Plus
¥ Ethnic
Diversity:
White,
Black,
Asian,
Hispanic
Mix
Lifestyle
&
Media
Traits
¥ Shop
at
Macy’s
¥ Vacation
abroad
¥ Read
Audubon
Magazine
¥ Watch
Masterpiece
¥ Drive
Lincoln
Town
Car
Flex
Fuel
The
Cosmopolitan
segment
was
prevalent
in
both
the
Summer
Season
and
the
Need
Period.
The
Cosmopolitans
made
up
7%
of
the
visitor
mix
in
the
Summer
Season
and
9%
during
the
Shoulder
period.
This
segment
of
empty-‐nesters
has
an
upper
to
mid-‐level
household
income
and
live
in
more
urban
areas.
This
segment
enjoys
being
able
to
up
and
go
now
that
their
children
are
out
of
the
house.
They
are
social
couples
who
enjoy
leisure
activities.
For
Carlsbad,
this
market
would
enjoy
the
walking
and
hiking
trails
around
the
lagoon,
yoga,
stand-‐up
paddle
boarding,
and
golf.
This
is
a
potential
growth
market
for
Carlsbad.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
44
Seasonal
Segments
Overview
SAG
sorted
the
segmented
data
by
month
to
determine
which
types
of
visitors
were
coming
to
Carlsbad
during
the
Summer
Season
versus
the
Shoulder
Season.
SAG
defined
the
Summer
Season
by
May-‐
August
and
the
Shoulder
Season
by
September-‐March.
The
results
of
this
seasonal
sorting
indicates
that
there
are
distinct
differences
between
those
segments
who
travel
to
and
have
interest
in
Carlsbad
in
the
summer
and
those
who
are
visiting
in
the
Shoulder
Season.
SAG
has
determined,
based
on
these
results
that
the
marketing
should
be
re-‐focused
at
these
segments
during
the
appropriate
season.
Summer
Season
Segments
As
mentioned
above,
SAG
is
confident
that
the
segments
including
families
with
children
12
and
under
are
a
key
component
of
Carlsbad’s
summer
visitor
mix.
Those
segments
are
visiting
attractions,
buying
packages,
and
frequenting
family
hot
spots
like
LEGOLAND
and
the
Beach.
Of
the
data
records
SAG
was
able
to
segment,
the
top
15
Summer
Season
segments
of
Nielsen’s
66
segments
accounted
for
65%
of
the
Summer
Season
visitor
mix.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
the
second
largest
segments
were
households
with
no
kids.
This
indicates
an
opportunity
to
diversify
our
summer
information.
The
below
chart
shows
the
breakdown
by
percentage
of
the
top
15
segments
that
visit
Carlsbad
in
the
Summer
Season:
20%
19%
13%
7%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Summer
Season
Top
Segments
Kids
and
Cul-‐de-‐Sacs
-‐
20%
Movers
&
Shakers
-‐
19%
Upper
Crust
-‐
13%
The
Cosmopolitans
-‐
7%
Money
&
Brains
-‐
6%
Home
Sweet
Home
-‐
5%
Middleburg
Managers
-‐
5%
Tradimonal
Times
-‐
4%
Tradimonal
Times
New
Empty
Nests
-‐
4%
Bohemian
Mix
-‐
4%
Grey
Power
-‐
3%
New
Homesteaders
-‐
3%
Urban
Achievers
-‐
3%
Greenbelt
Sports
-‐
2%
Up-‐and-‐Comers
-‐
2%
■
■
■
■
■
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
45
The
top
three
segments
for
the
summer
were:
• Kids
and
Cul-‐de-‐Sacs
(20%)
–
upper
middle
class
families
with
children
living
in
the
suburbs.
These
families
have
a
household
median
income
of
$71,830
and
the
parents’
range
in
age
from
25-‐44.
The
parents
are
college
educated
and
hold
professional
positions.
These
families
are
in
the
“melting
pot”
category
and
are
White,
Black,
Asian,
Hispanic
and
Mixed.
These
families
order
on
target.com,
watch
the
X
Games
on
TV
and
drive
minivans
like
the
Honda
Odyssey.
• Movers
&
Shakers
(19%)
–
wealthy,
older
households
without
kids
living
in
the
suburbs.
These
households
are
45-‐64
with
a
median
income
of
$101,517.
This
segment
is
college
educated
carrying
graduate
degrees
and
holding
management
positions.
They
are
mostly
White
and
Asian.
These
households
play
tennis,
shop
at
Nordstrom
and
drive
higher
end
SUVs
i.e.,
Land
Rover.
• Upper
Crust
(13%)
–
significantly
wealthy,
older
households
without
kids
living
in
the
suburbs.
This
segment
is
55+
with
a
median
household
income
of
$110,117
and
classified
by
Nielsen
as
millionaires.
These
households
are
college
educated
with
graduate
degrees
in
upper
management
positions.
They
are
mainly
White.
This
segment
shops
at
high
end
store
like
Saks
Fifth
Avenue,
have
vacationed
in
Europe,
watch
and
play
golf
and
drive
luxury
vehicles
i.e.,
Lexus
LS.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
46
Shoulder
Season
Segments
SAG
was
able
to
sort
the
segments
by
the
time
of
year
they
visited
and
determined
that
the
Shoulder
Season
of
September-‐March
had
distinct
segments
that
visited
Carlsbad.
These
segments
differ
from
the
segments
above
and
also
vary
in
percentage.
These
segments
were
typically
households
without
children
who
have
disposable
income
and
enjoy
recreation
and
leisure
activities.
These
segments
would
likely
be
spa-‐goers,
golfers,
hikers,
shoppers
and
diners.
These
segments
have
flexibility
to
travel
at
will
and
are
comfortable
enough
to
do
so
regularly.
Of
the
data
records
SAG
was
able
to
segment,
the
top
15
Shoulder
Season
segments
of
Nielsen’s
66
segments,
which
accounted
for
75%
of
the
Shoulder
Season
visitor
mix.
The
below
chart
shows
the
breakdown
by
percentage
of
the
top
15
segments
that
visit
Carlsbad
in
the
Shoulder
Season:
20%
12%
10%
10%
8%
8%
7%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Shoulder
Season
Top
Segements
Upper
Crust
-‐
20%
Money
&
Brains
-‐
12%
The
Cosmopolitans
-‐
10%
Middleburg
Managers
-‐
10%
Tradimonal
Times
-‐
8%
Bohemian
Mix
-‐
8%
Home
Sweet
Home
-‐
7%
Grey
Power
-‐
5%
Greenbelt
Sports
-‐
4%
Country
Casuals
-‐
4%
Movers
&
Shakers
-‐
3%
Young
Influenmals
-‐
3%
Blue
Blood
Estates
-‐
2%
New
Empty
Nests
-‐
2%
Up-‐and-‐Comers
-‐
2%
■
■
■
■
■
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
47
The
top
three
segments
in
order
were:
¥ Upper
Crust
(20%)
–
significantly
wealthy,
older
households
without
kids
living
in
the
suburbs.
This
segment
is
55+
with
a
median
household
income
of
$110,117
and
are
classified
by
Nielsen
as
millionaires.
These
households
are
college
educated
with
graduate
degrees
in
upper
management
positions.
They
are
mainly
White.
This
segment
shops
at
high-‐end
stores
like
Saks
Fifth
Avenue,
have
vacationed
in
Europe,
watch
and
play
golf
and
drive
luxury
vehicles
i.e.,
Lexus
LS.
¥ Money
&
Brains
(12%)
–
wealthy,
older
family
mix
within
the
household,
living
in
urban
areas.
The
older
family
mix
means
the
children
are
mostly
older
teenage
or
college
age
dependents.
The
parents
are
45-‐64
with
a
median
household
income
of
$88,837
and
are
college
educated
in
management
positions.
These
households
are
classified
as
a
“Melting
Pot”
and
include
White,
Asian,
Black,
Hispanic
and
Mixed.
This
segment
shops
at
stores
like
Banana
Republic,
travel
for
business
occasionally,
watch
tennis
and
drive
luxury
SUVs
i.e.,
Mercedes
Benz
E
Class.
¥ The
Cosmopolitans
(10%)
–
wealthy,
mid
to
older
age
range,
mostly
without
kids
living
in
urban
areas.
This
segment
is
55+
with
a
household
income
of
$58,313
working
in
white
collar
settings.
This
segment
is
classified
as
a
“Melting
Pot”
and
includes
White,
Asian,
Black,
Hispanic
and
Mixed.
These
households
shop
at
Macy’s,
have
vacationed
outside
the
US,
watch
Masterpiece
Theatre
and
drive
upper
midclass
vehicles
i.e.,
Lincoln
Town
Car
-‐
Flex
Fuel.
The
results
of
this
analysis
support
the
shifting
of
resources
to
focus
on
the
top
segments
that
have
been
identified
in
this
analysis.
The
opportunity
is
to
increase
Carlsbad’s
share
of
these
markets
that
have
demonstrated
interest
in
visiting
in
the
shoulder
periods.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
48
Comparable
Segmentation
Research
SAG,
in
conjunction
with
Mindgruve,
met
and
talked
with
the
research
firm
Resonate
which
has
been
monitoring
audiences
visiting
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website
during
the
summer
campaign
from
April
to
September.
SAG
analyzed
the
data
collected
by
Resonate
through
the
pixels
embedded
in
each
page.
These
pixels
allow
Resonate
to
capture
data
on
the
individuals
using
visitcarlsbad.com.
Resonate
Audience
Insights:
Resonate’s
data
showed
different
segments
of
people
were
actively
going
to
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website
during
different
times
of
the
campaign.
The
campaign
began
April
1,
2014
and
ran
through
September
18,
2014.
Below
is
a
snapshot
of
Income
and
Household
data
collected
on
people
who
visited
the
DMO
website
during
the
month
of
April:
S SOK--wChildren
S.100-150 w/oO, den
'l-100-150 wOl den ••
INSIGHT GROUPS
<S25K ■ S25K-50
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
150K-•r/o C ildrer
SS0-75K vChildren
SSQI(. 75K ■ S75K • 1 OOI( $100 -150!( ■ S150!(•
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
49
This
data
shows
the
Insight
Groups
who
visited
the
DMO
website
in
the
month
of
April
were
more
affluent
than
the
current
target
market.
The
current
target
market
actually
indexes
in
the
sixth
position.
The
visitors
that
indexed
the
highest
are
ranked
in
order
by
income
and
presence
of
children
in
the
household
below
(all
segments
indexed
above
100
showing
strong
presence):
1. $150,000+
annual
income
with
children
–
highest
index
-‐
279
2. $150,000+
annual
income
without
children
–
index
-‐
276
3. $50,000-‐74,000
annual
income
with
children
–
index
-‐
185
4. $100,000-‐150,000
annual
income
without
children
–
index
-‐
169
5. $100,000-‐150,000
annual
income
with
children
–
index
–
162
Below
is
a
snapshot
of
Income
and
Household
data
collected
on
people
who
visited
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website
between
the
months
of
June
and
August:
This
data
shows
the
users
who
visited
the
DMO
website
between
the
months
of
June
to
Augusts
were
more
affluent
than
the
current
target
market.
This
data
captures
the
current
target
market
as
the
S SOK•wChildren
$100-150Kw01 den
INSIGHTGRO JPS
<S25K ■ S25K-50<
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
S1S0K-•i/o C ildrer
SSOK-75K
•s n
S75K-100!< $1 OOt< -150l( S150K-
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
50
eighth
highest
indexing
segment.
This
data
also
shows
that
there
are
additional
segments
actively
interested
in
the
Carlsbad
product,
which
are
viable
targets.
The
visitors
that
indexed
the
highest
are
ranked
in
order
by
income
and
presence
of
children
in
the
household
below
(all
segments
indexed
above
100
showing
strong
presence):
1. $150,000+
annual
income
with
children
–
highest
index
2. $75,000
-‐
$100,000
annual
income
without
children
3. $100,000
-‐
$150,000
annual
income
with
children
4. $150,000+
annual
income
without
children
5. $100,000
-‐
$150,000
annual
income
without
children
The
current
target
market
of
Visit
Carlsbad
indexed
in
eighth
place.
SAG
compared
the
Resonate
Audience
Insight
Groups
data
above
to
the
Summer
Season
and
Shoulder
Season
results
from
the
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis
and
developed
the
below
profile.
The
charts
below
are
the
highest
indexing
segments
for
each
respective
season
overlaid
with
the
Resonate
Audience
Insight
Groups.
Shoulder
Season
Segments
&
Audience
Insights
Groups
This
overlay
of
the
PRIZM
results
from
the
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis
with
the
Resonate
Audience
Insight
data
is
an
illustration
of
similar
segments
interest
in
the
Carlsbad
tourism
product.
During
the
Shoulder
Season,
the
Upper
Crust
PRIZM
segment
indexes
the
highest
and
correlates
directly
to
the
Resonate
Audience
Insight
data
profiles
of
those
visiting
the
website.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Upper
Crust
Money
&
Brains
The
Cosmopolitans
Middleburg
Managers
Tradimonal
Times
PRIZM
Resonate
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
....... -
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
51
This
validates
further
the
need
to
refocus
the
marketing
resources
on
the
markets
indicated
in
the
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis
and
reinforced
with
the
Resonate
data
gathered
from
recent
web
activity.
Summer
Season
Top
Segments
&
Audience
Insight
Data
During
the
Summer
Season
the
overlap
of
the
results
shows
that
the
PRIZM
segments
that
had
the
strongest
market-‐share
in
Carlsbad
were
also
indexing
the
highest
against
the
Resonate
results
from
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website.
Kids
&
Cul-‐de-‐sacs
had
the
highest
market
share
during
the
summer
season
and
matches
directly
with
the
top
profile
of
the
Resonate
Audience
Insights
data.
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis
Conclusions
This
comparable
analysis
confirms
and
supports
SAG’s
research
and
recommendation
of
a
new
direction
in
target
markets.
The
overlapping
data
of
specific
segments
clearly
show
a
presence
of
new
and
different
segments,
which
should
be
targets
for
future
marketing
initiatives.
These
segments
are
all
affluent
households
with
relatively
high
incomes.
The
key
targets
for
the
shoulder
periods
are
households
without
children.
This
allows
Carlsbad
to
diversify
the
tourism
product
and
create
specific
experiences
that
these
markets
will
enjoy.
The
overall
focus
on
the
shoulder
periods
combined
with
the
results
of
the
segmentation
study
creates
a
clear
path
for
future
marketing
efforts.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Kids
&
Cul-‐de-‐sacs
Movers
&
Shakers
Upper
Crust
The
Cosmopolitans
Money
&
Brains
PRIZM
Resonate
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
....... -
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
52
Conclusion
–
Research
The
research
that
was
conducted
by
SAG
provides
the
foundation
for
the
recommendations
contained
in
this
report.
It
is
clear
that
Carlsbad
has
an
opportunity
to
improve
its
position
in
comparison
to
the
destinations
that
were
analyzed.
Growth
in
the
level
of
funding
will
increase
Carlsbad’s
ability
to
strengthen
its
position
in
the
new
target
markets.
The
segmentation
research
creates
a
clear
path
for
future
marketing.
It
is
recommended
that
specific
campaigns
with
relevant
experiences
and
packages
be
created
to
drive
more
visitation
from
these
market
segments.
SAG
Research
The
above
chart
illustrates
the
multifaceted
approach
to
research
for
this
report.
This
approach
has
created
broad
based
input
and
participation
coupled
with
market
and
competitive
destination
analysis.
SAG
Research
Past
Research
Compemmmve
Desmnamons
Stakeholder
Focus
Groups
Stakeholder
Survey
Regional
Stakeholder
Survey
Nielson
Lifestyle
Analysis
Online
Data
/Resonate
MINT
Search
-‐
Group
Market
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
53
Research
Plan
–
Recommendation
It
is
recommended
that
an
annual
research
plan
is
developed
as
part
of
the
overall
tourism
effort.
The
results
of
the
research
underscored
the
importance
of
an
ongoing
plan.
A
sustainable
research
plan
will
create
research-‐based
decision
making
for
future
marketing
efforts.
This
investment
can
also
be
very
valuable
in
refining
future
target
markets.
Research
will
give
insight
on
the
overall
visitor
experience
in
Carlsbad.
The
types
of
research
that
would
be
beneficial
include:
Visitor
Profile
Study
–
Every
Three
Years
A
visitor
profile
study
is
designed
to
gain
information
on
visitors
to
Carlsbad
as
well
as
gain
insight
on
the
overall
visitor
experience.
The
current
visitor
profile
study
questions
should
be
reviewed
to
ensure
a
more
thorough
understanding
of
the
overall
visitor
experience
in
Carlsbad.
The
current
visitor
profile
study
focuses
on
key
characteristics
of
the
surveyed
travelers
but
doesn’t
probe
the
level
of
satisfaction
or
additional
experiences
that
a
visitor
is
interested
in.
Another
dimension
of
the
visitor
profile
study
must
entail
a
comparison
of
the
demographics
of
visitors
based
on
the
time
of
year
they
have
visited
Carlsbad.
Benchmarking
Study
–
Biannually
The
foundation
for
benchmarking
that
has
been
established
with
this
process
should
be
updated
on
a
biannual
basis.
This
could
be
accomplished
internally
and
would
evaluate
the
positioning
of
Carlsbad
relative
to
the
competitive
set
in
a
broad
spectrum
of
areas.
The
benchmarking
study
could
be
conducted
internally.
Target
Audience
Study
–
Biannually
This
study
would
be
a
continuation
of
the
research
conducted
for
this
study
to
utilize
hotel
and
inquiry
guest
data
to
further
refine
the
demographics
and
interests
of
targeted
audiences.
The
results
of
the
study
conducted
for
this
report
have
been
informative.
The
goal
would
be
to
have
a
greater
level
of
participation
by
Carlsbad
Hotels
in
future
studies.
This
will
help
understand
the
trends
in
market
mix
and
whether
there
is
an
increase
in
targeted
markets
visitation
of
Carlsbad.
The
expense
associated
with
this
study
can
be
reduced
if
the
data
from
the
analysis
is
reviewed
and
reported
internally.
Meeting
Planner
Survey
–
Biannually
This
study
would
focus
on
the
desirability
of
Carlsbad
as
a
meetings
destination.
The
study
would
also
focus
on
amenities
and
services
that
would
enhance
Carlsbad’s
competitiveness.
SAG
recommends
conducting
this
study
at
the
point
that
the
implementation
of
the
group
sales
plan
is
complete.
This
will
help
refine
the
messaging
and
approach
of
the
group
sales
and
marketing
effort.
The
meeting
planner
survey
will
also
give
an
indication
of
attendee
trends
by
target
group
markets.
Through
the
use
of
the
Visit
Carlsbad
group
database
and
MINT,
this
survey
can
be
completed
with
minimal
expense.
SAG
has
recommended
an
increase
to
the
budget
for
research
in
order
to
create
an
ongoing
research
plan.
The
baseline
that
is
created
through
consistent
effective
research
will
become
the
foundation
for
future
marketing
and
advocacy.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
54
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing
–
A
New
Direction
SAG
has
reviewed
the
current
activities
and
resources
dedicated
to
Individual
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing.
SAG
has
met
with
the
current
digital
advertising
agency
and
public
relations
firm.
Mindgruve
and
DCI
have
provided
helpful
analysis
and
insight
for
this
study.
SAG
has
reviewed
the
most
current
marketing
plans
and
reports
that
are
generated
from
both
firms.
In
conjunction
with
the
research
conducted
that
has
identified
potential
new
target
markets
for
Carlsbad
to
increase
visitors
during
shoulder
periods,
SAG
evaluated
the
current
approach
in
leisure
sales
and
marketing.
The
proposed
restructuring
of
the
overall
budget
and
resources
for
the
development
of
a
new
groups
sales
and
marketing
effort
has
an
impact
on
the
approach
and
resources
dedicated
to
leisure
marketing.
The
more
compelling
purpose
of
re-‐evaluating
the
current
approach
is
to
have
a
more
targeted
approach
with
a
viable
mechanism
of
tracking
the
actual
conversion
of
future
marketing
efforts
into
overnight
visitors.
The
plethora
of
options
that
exist
for
consumers
to
book
their
travel
makes
this
challenging,
however
it
must
be
aggressively
pursued
to
demonstrate
return
on
investment
(ROI)
of
future
activities.
The
current
key
measurements
of
success
are
focused
on
increasing
online
activity
and
overall
impressions
for
Carlsbad.
The
following
is
an
overview
of
the
current
approach
to
measurement:
Online/PR
Activity
Measures
The
following
are
the
listed
performance
measures
from
the
most
recent
annual
report
for
Visit
Carlsbad.
The
most
recent
report
shows
an
increase
in
web
traffic,
an
increase
in
social
media
followers,
and
other
indicators
of
increased
traffic
due
to
the
digital
marketing
efforts.
The
investment
that
has
been
made
in
online
marketing
has
been
successful
in
increasing
overall
activity
and
awareness
of
Carlsbad
as
a
destination.
The
reports
generated
by
DCI
focus
on
overall
impressions
generated
by
the
public
relations
efforts
and
determine
the
value
of
those
impressions
in
advertising
dollars.
These
results
also
demonstrate
that
the
public
relations
efforts
are
driving
increased
awareness
of
Carlsbad
as
a
destination.
vGoogle
Analytics
ØDirect
&
referral
traffic
ØTime
on
Website
ØPage
Views
vSocial
Media
ØTotal
Likes,
followers
&
video
views
ØSocial
referral
traffic
to
website
vEmail
Marketing
ØOpen
&
Click
through
ratios
ØSubscriber
database
growth
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
55
Future
Direction
SAG
recommends
refining
the
future
focus
and
measurement
to
determine
impact
that
sales
and
marketing
efforts
have
had
on
driving
room
nights
or
incremental
visitors
to
Carlsbad.
The
other
measure
would
be
on
increasing
awareness
of
Carlsbad
with
agreed-‐upon
targeted
markets.
The
increased
focus
on
targeted
marketing
with
a
collaborative
effort
to
track
results
is
an
important
new
direction
for
Carlsbad
leisure
meeting
efforts.
The
more
focused
effort
has
the
potential
to
produce
more
impactful
results
in
the
timeframes
that
have
been
determined
as
a
priority.
Direct
Marketing
In
conjunction
with
the
outcome
of
the
research
on
future
target
markets,
SAG
recommends
shifting
the
current
marketing
approach
from
online
advertising
to
a
focused
direct
marketing
approach.
The
benefit
of
this
approach
is
the
ability
to
create
specific
experiences
designed
to
appeal
to
targeted
audiences.
This
will
include
developing
specific
experiences
and
offers
for
the
targeted
market
segments
and
utilizing
e-‐marketing
techniques
to
reach
the
desired
audience.
According
to
the
2013
SDTA
Visitor
Profile
Study,
85%
of
the
current
visitors
coming
to
Carlsbad
are
using
the
internet
as
their
information
source
and
are
likely
to
be
receptive
to
a
targeted
direct
marketing
approach.
The
information
gathered
about
the
likes
and
interests
of
the
targeted
market
segments
create
the
opportunity
to
develop
Carlsbad
experiences
that
appeal
to
them.
An
example
of
this
is
the
“Uppercrust”
market
segment
that
has
shown
a
high
interest
in
Carlsbad
during
the
shoulder
periods.
They
enjoy
activities
like
golf
and
like
to
dine
out.
Carlsbad
experiences
would
be
developed
with
these
components
and
sent
directly
to
them
through
direct
e-‐marketing.
Tracking
Room
Nights
–
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing
SAG
recognizes
the
challenge
of
tracking
room
nights
that
have
been
generated
from
leisure
sales
and
marketing
activities.
The
plethora
of
options
that
a
potential
visitor
has
to
book
a
room
in
Carlsbad
is
vast.
Many
studies
have
indicated
that
only
a
small
percentage
of
visitors
will
book
a
room
through
a
Destination
Marketing
Organization
website.
The
opportunity
exists
to
more
predominantly
position
the
booking
engine
as
a
vehicle
to
buy
specific
offers
and
gain
insight
through
this
activity
as
to
the
CURRENT
SUCCESS
MEASURES
• Website
TrafNic
• Total
Followers
• Database
Growth
• Impressions
• Advertising
Equivalency
FUTURE
SUCCESS
MEASURES
• Room
Nights
Converted
• Package/Experience
Sales
• Increased
Awareness
–
Target
Markets
Uppercrust
'-
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
56
success
of
future
direct
marketing
campaigns.
The
booking
engine,
powered
by
aRes,
will
be
an
indicator
of
the
success
of
a
campaign.
Online
Hotel
Referrals
–
Recent
Activity
The
following
chart
is
a
recent
indicator
of
the
number
of
monthly
visitors
to
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website
that
“clicked
through”
to
specific
Carlsbad
hotels.
The
chart
below
indicates
that
there
were
2,404
web
users
that
have
taken
action
to
review
and
possibly
book
hotel
rooms.
Outbound
Traffic
Sent
to
Hotel
Sites
Hotel
Outbound
Clicks
1
Ocean
Villas
172
2
Beach
Walk
Villas
169
3
Seashore
on
the
Sand
169
4
Oceanfront
Carlsbad
109
5
Carlsbad
Inn
Beach
Resort
74
6
Grand
Pacific
Palisades
69
7
Marbrisa
Resort
66
8
LEGOLAND
Hotel
64
9
Scandia
Motel
64
10
Beach
View
Lodge
63
Total
2,404
SAG
recommends
that
a
system
is
designed
through
specific
offers
and
collaboration
with
the
individual
hotel
web
analytics
to
determine
how
many
Visit
Carlsbad
website
users
made
reservations
through
the
hotels’
online
reservations
platforms.
SAG
discussed
potential
approaches
with
Mindgruve
for
the
ability
to
track
actual
conversion
from
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website.
The
following
recommendation
was
developed
in
collaboration
with
Mindgruve.
It
is
recommended
that
current
individual
hotel
Google
analytics
are
evaluated
to
determine
goal
tracking
around
bookings.
Filters
can
be
created
specific
to
Visit
Carlsbad
referring
traffic
to
view
the
number
of
conversions.
The
hotels
will
need
to
give
access
to
this
data,
but
once
set
up,
an
automated
report
can
be
created
that
can
detail
specific
results
to
the
stakeholders.
Booking
Engine
While
a
DMO
booking
engine
is
only
one
vehicle
that
a
visitor
can
use
to
reserve
hotel
rooms
in
Carlsbad,
the
utilization
can
be
an
indicator
of
the
success
of
a
campaign
or
overall
effort.
Visit
Carlsbad
has
contracted
aRes
Travel
which
supports
the
booking
engine
on
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website.
The
following
is
a
breakdown
of
the
hotel
bookings
made
through
the
booking
engine
in
2014.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
57
The
total
reservations
that
have
been
booked
year
to
date
is
186
and
the
total
room
nights
are
424.
This
represents
less
that
.001
percent
of
the
unique
visitors
that
have
visited
the
website
in
2014.
The
following
chart
shows
the
past
five
years
of
room
nights
booked
through
the
booking
engine:
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
6
7
8
13
14
14
14
15
19
20
21
0
5
10
15
20
25
#
o
f
B
o
o
k
i
n
g
s
Property
2014
ARES
Bookings
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Room
Nights
Booked
Through
Visit
Carlsbad
Booking
Engine
Room
nights
booked
have
decreased
79%
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
58
SAG
recommends
using
the
activity
on
the
booking
engine
as
a
performance
measure.
A
goal
would
be
set
annually
to
review
growth
in
the
booking
engine
activity.
The
recommended
shift
in
marketing
focus
will
position
the
booking
engine
more
predominantly
in
the
reservation
process.
Package/Experience
Sales
An
active
package
sales
component
is
an
important
aspect
of
an
effective
leisure
sales
and
marketing
plan.
The
data
that
has
been
supplied
from
the
research
gives
an
indication
of
the
priority
leisure
markets
and
their
interests.
SAG
recommends
that
packages
are
created
that
are
focused
on
driving
new
targeted
visitors
during
the
shoulder
periods.
These
packages
can
also
be
utilized
directly
by
the
hotels
in
their
reservations
platforms.
Year
to
date
2014
package
sales
are
as
follows:
Package
Name
#
Sold
Total
Amt
Room
Nights
Tickets
The
Ultimate
LEGOLAND®
Family
Fun
Vacation
24
$22,161.63
63
108
The
Best
of
San
Diego!
Fabulous
Four
Combo
Package
2
$2,510.00
10
16
Romance
Package
-‐
Holiday
Inn
Express
and
Suites
Carlsbad
Beach
1
$445.00
3
0
Go
Wild
at
the
San
Diego
Zoo
Safari
Park
-‐
Holiday
Inn
Express
and
Suites
Carlsbad
Beach
1
$1,272.65
5
4
There
were
28
“trackable”
packages
sold
in
the
first
10
months
of
2014,
which
accounted
for
81
hotel
room
nights.
In
combination
with
a
newly
focused
direct
marketing
campaign,
this
number
will
grow
in
the
future.
Deals
Page
SAG
also
reviewed
the
“trackability”
of
the
Deals
Page
on
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website
and
found
that
the
click
through
rate
(CTR)
was
low.
During
the
2014
calendar
year
the
CTR
for
the
deals
page
was
.07%
with
the
total
page
views
at
648
and
the
total
click
throughs
to
the
unique
pages
at
only
51.
This
underscores
the
opportunity
to
monitor
referral
activity
and
adjust
offerings
on
an
on-‐going
basis.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
59
Visitor
Services
–
Visitor
Experience
Sales
and
Service
Currently
the
Visit
Carlsbad
Information
Center
functions
as
an
information
and
fulfillment
operation
for
a
visitor
who
walks
in,
calls
in,
or
makes
an
online
request
for
information.
Year-‐
to-‐date
in
2014,
the
Visitor
Services
team
has
handled
8,360
inquiries.
The
Information
Center
has
brochures
from
the
attractions
in
Carlsbad
and
the
San
Diego
region.
SAG
recommends
that
the
Visitor
Information
function
evolve
to
Visitor
Experience
Sales
and
Service.
The
focus
of
this
area
will
be
to
handle
any
inquiry
as
a
“lead”
and
work
closely
with
potential
visitors
to
“convert”
them
to
actual
overnight
visitors
through
directly
booking
future
stays
and
packages.
This
will
also
be
accomplished
through
referrals
with
follow
up
and
confirmation.
Destination
software
packages
have
the
capability
to
support
this
type
of
effort.
SAG
has
recommended
the
implementation
of
new
software.
SAG
recommends
that
goals
are
set
for
both
inquiries
and
room
night
conversion
from
the
Visitor
Services
efforts.
Goal
Setting
–
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing
The
overall
recommendations
for
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing
create
the
opportunity
to
set
annual
quantitative
conversion
goals.
SAG
has
created
preliminary
goals
for
the
first
year
of
the
new
direction.
The
following
is
a
chart
that
depicts
the
components
of
annual
goal
tracking:
Activity
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Goal
Package/Experience
Sales
81
1,100
Booking
Engine
Hotel
Bookings
424
1,500
Online
Referral
Room
Nights
NA
750
Visitor
Experience
Sales
and
Service
–
Inquiries
/Room
Nights
NA
250
Total
Room
Night
Goal
–
2015
3,600
The
projected
3,600
new
“trackable”
room
nights
assumes
the
approval
of
the
recommendations
in
February
and
the
ability
to
have
new
targeted
marketing
efforts
in
full
implementation
by
March
1st.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
60
Public
Relations
SAG
had
informational
meetings
with
the
current
public
relations
contractor
to
understand
the
current
activities.
DCI
was
very
informative
and
helpful
in
gaining
an
understanding
of
current
activities.
The
following
is
an
illustration
of
the
metrics
that
are
currently
used
in
measuring
success
and
a
sampling
of
the
publications
that
are
targeted
for
Carlsbad
news.
The
current
four
top
line
measures
of
success
are:
1. Return
on
investment
a. Ad
Equivalency
/
DCI
Contract
Amount
2. Circulation/Impressions
a. Verified
circulation
from
media
where
PR
efforts
drove
Carlsbad
articles
or
features
3. Advertising
Equivalency
a. The
cost
of
the
PR
placements
if
they
were
to
be
purchased
as
advertising.
4. Call
to
Action
a. The
level
of
activity
driven
from
PR
efforts
on
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website.
The
overarching
goal
of
the
current
PR
efforts
is
to
increase
awareness
of
Carlsbad
nationally
in
a
wide
variety
of
travel
related
media,
as
well
as
general
media.
The
illustration
above
shows
the
variety
of
media
where
Carlsbad
has
received
publicity
in
conjunction
with
the
current
PR
efforts.
PUBLIC RELATIONS Abiut.com G~lf Travel
Total Impressions: 37,465,502 TR VEL SA:
✓ Broadcast Impressions: 3,518,406
✓ Print Impressions: 521,000
✓ Online Impressions: 33,426,096
✓ Advertising Equivalency: $830,862
✓ Return-On-Investment: 14:1
~v~T~~~~,E~b ;~~L
spat~§.9.,~ 6 1away.com
Ad Equiv/ ($5,000 x 12)
Key Message Dissemination families .com8
frugal living for the whole family
✓ Carlsbad: California's Quintessential 3,019,491
Oceanside Getaway THE GLOBE AND MAIL
✓ In Carlsbad, LEGOLAND Anchors A 9,262,408
Week of Family Fun in SoCal · -,.. USA TODAY Epicure & Culture
► llltll. '1'11\t II, ( ll ll-► f!!II lht t lttll \I, 11\\l:l lM
✓ Carlsbad: Fostering Healthy Living 28,023,050
Since 1882
✓ Carlsbad Woos Corporate Execs with 14,050
Accessible, Pro Quality Golf 8 @ examiner
Call To Action Placement
✓ visitcarlsbad.com 26,744,392
✓ 1-800-227-5722 102,028 Weekend Getaways
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
61
SAG
Recommendation
–
Focused
Public
Relations
In
conjunction
with
the
overall
focus
on
key
markets
and
with
an
emphasis
on
the
shoulder
periods,
SAG
recommends
a
focused
approach
to
public
relations.
This
will
include
gaining
an
understanding
for
the
most
effective
vehicles
to
drive
awareness
to
the
target
market
segments.
The
Nielson
Lifestyle
Segmentation
research
indicates
the
most
popular
vehicles
for
reaching
the
key
segments
and
with
that
information
Visit
Carlsbad
can
deploy
public
relations
efforts
in
a
targeted
manner.
This
will
contribute
to
a
more
focused
plan
going
forward.
The
proposed
budget
has
a
smaller
allocation
for
PR
however
a
more
targeted
approach
that
will
create
more
awareness
in
the
top
market
segments.
Conclusion
–
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing
There
is
an
opportunity
to
re-‐focus
the
future
efforts
in
leisure
sales
and
marketing
for
Carlsbad.
The
research
has
identified
the
top
segments
to
pursue
to
increase
shoulder
period
visitation.
The
development
of
Carlsbad
experiences
that
will
raise
awareness
and
create
specific
options
for
the
targeted
market
segments
create
an
effective
and
measurable
approach
for
the
future.
The
recommended
refocused
targeted
approach
will
be
effective
in
driving
increased
awareness
to
the
targeted
markets
while
resources
are
reallocated
for
the
development
of
the
group
sales
and
marketing
plan.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
62
Group
Sales
and
Marketing
The
input
received
in
the
stakeholder
focus
groups
as
well
as
the
review
of
competitive
destinations
mix
of
visitors
uncovered
the
need
to
study
the
potential
of
conventions
and
meetings
as
a
future
target
for
tourism
marketing.
Currently,
Visit
Carlsbad
utilizes
empowerMINT
(a
subscription
to
the
MINT
database)
to
procure
RFPs
for
group
business
through
visitcarlsbad.com.
Below
are
the
2014
leads
generated
through
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website:
SAG
met
with
Visit
Carlsbad’s
executive
director
along
with
the
City's
economic
development
manager
and
the
Directors
of
Sales
(DOSes)
for
the
hotel
properties
that
have
larger
amounts
of
meeting
space
in
order
to
gain
their
insight
on
the
potential
of
the
group
market
and
how
tourism
resources
could
be
utilized
most
effectively.
As
is
the
overall
recommended
strategy
of
this
report,
the
focus
was
to
understand
the
current
group
sales
efforts
and
the
potential
to
focus
future
efforts
on
increasing
the
Shoulder
Season
visitation.
The
DOSes
were
very
interested
and
supported
a
recommendation
to
work
together
on
behalf
of
Visit
Carlsbad
to
market
the
destination.
The
following
Carlsbad
hotel
leaders
have
participated
in
this
process:
1. Vikram
Sood,
Hilton
Oceanfront
Resort
&
Spa
2. Julie
Zahner,
Sheraton
Carlsbad
Resort
&
Spa
3. Patsy
Bock,
Omni
La
Costa
Resort
&
Spa
4. Jason
McLaughlin,
Park
Hyatt
Aviara
Resort
5. Michael
Swyney,
Hilton
Oceanfront
Resort
&
Spa
The
opportunity
in
creating
a
new
group
sales
and
marketing
effort
is
to
determine
how
to
implement
an
approach
that
is
complimentary
to
the
current
sales
efforts
of
the
individual
hotels
and
resorts.
SAG
facilitated
a
discussion
with
the
DOSes
to
determine
how
to
create
a
new
effort
that
was
focused
on
raising
awareness
and
bringing
new
groups
that
were
not
already
being
marketed
and
sold
by
Carlsbad
hotels.
This
is
a
common
concern
for
other
destinations.
The
consensus
was
that
the
new
group
effort
must
be
very
open
and
transparent
to
allow
for
the
oversight
committee,
in
conjunction
with
Visit
Carlsbad,
to
monitor
and
re-‐focus
the
business
development
efforts
on
a
monthly
basis.
The
recommendations
in
this
area
have
been
developed
in
conjunction
with
the
participating
DOSs.
The
following
are
key
components
of
the
recommended
new
approach
to
attracting
new
group
business
to
Carlsbad:
2014
Visit
Carlsbad
Online
RFP
Group
Statistics
Leads:
6
Number
of
Attendees:
305
Peak
Room
Nights
-‐
110
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
63
Oversight
An
oversight
committee
will
be
formed
as
a
committee
of
the
Board
of
Directors.
This
committee
will
be
made
up
of
the
hotels
with
meeting
space
which
can
provide
expertise
and
support
in
the
development
of
a
successful
group
sales
and
marketing
program.
This
committee
would
monitor
progress
on
a
monthly
basis
as
well
as
review
and
recommend
the
group
sales
budget
and
goals.
The
level
of
engagement
of
this
committee
will
have
a
direct
impact
on
the
success
of
the
program.
The
goal
is
that
this
group
sales
initiative
will
be
a
collaborative
process.
Goal
Setting
The
goal
setting
process
will
include
initial
research
by
the
Visit
Carlsbad
Business
Development
Manager
with
review
by
the
Executive
Director.
The
goals
will
then
be
presented
to
the
oversight
committee
for
review
and
recommendation
for
the
goals
to
be
presented
to
the
Visit
Carlsbad
Board
of
Directors
and
the
TBID
Board
of
Directors.
Metrics
The
primary
metric
for
success
of
the
group
sales
effort
is
definite
room
nights
booked
as
a
result
of
the
sales
and
marketing
efforts.
The
tracking
of
these
room
nights
will
require
collaboration
between
the
hotels
booking
the
groups
and
Visit
Carlsbad.
Other
important
metrics
will
include
the
number
of
qualified
leads
generated
as
well
as
the
number
of
new
customers
that
have
come
to
Carlsbad
to
learn
about
the
destination
from
a
meetings
standpoint.
TBID
Board
of
Directors
Visit
Carlsbad
Board
of
Directors
Group
Sales
and
Markemng
Oversight
Commiyee
Visit
Carlsbad
Execumve
Director
Visit
Carlsbad
Business
Development
Manager
Key
Group
Sales
Metrics
¥Definite
Room
nights
Booked
¥Qualified
Leads
Generated
¥New
Customers
coming
to
Carlsbad
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
64
Staffing
The
recommended
approach
to
staffing
is
the
hiring
of
a
Business
Development
Manager
as
a
full
time
employee
of
Visit
Carlsbad.
This
position
would
report
to
the
Executive
Director
and
be
responsible
for
the
driving
awareness
of
Carlsbad
as
a
meetings
destination
and
identifying
new
customers
in
identified
markets
to
bring
to
Carlsbad.
The
job
functions
of
this
position
would
include:
1. Researching
and
developing
the
list
of
top
group
markets
for
Carlsbad
2. Developing
an
annual
plan
for
external
marketing
events
3. Prospecting
for
new
clients
who
have
potential
for
Carlsbad
4. Organizing
Familiarization
trips
to
bring
new
clients
to
Carlsbad
5. Creating
and
implementing
an
awareness
plan,
including
direct
marketing
6. Coordinating
a
targeted
PR
effort
for
the
Group
Market
7. Developing
a
group
database
for
Visit
Carlsbad
8. Developing
a
group
“Brand”
for
Carlsbad
9. Developing
an
approach
to
present
the
group
experience
in
Carlsbad
through
a
virtual
presentation
10. Developing
a
complete
online
space
for
meeting
planners
that
will
include
tools
and
meeting
space
specifications
for
all
Carlsbad
meeting
options
This
position
would
have
the
title
of
“business
development”
to
signify
that
the
role
would
be
to
work
on
uncovering
new
customers
for
Carlsbad
and
then
coordinating
with
the
hotels
for
the
actual
closing
and
contracting
of
business.
The
position
would
be
measured
based
on
the
number
of
groups
that
actually
booked
Carlsbad
from
the
new
sales
and
marketing
efforts.
This
makes
it
very
important
that
there
is
a
coordinated
approach
to
tracking
the
new
customers
and
whether
they
held
a
meeting
in
Carlsbad.
Meetings
that
take
place
from
Sunday
through
Wednesday
during
the
previously
mentioned
shoulder
period
(September
through
March)
will
be
a
primary
focus
of
this
new
effort.
Vertical
Markets
SAG
recommends
that
there
is
a
facilitated
session
in
conjunction
with
the
sales
department
to
finalize
the
top
vertical
markets
for
Carlsbad.
The
DOS’s
have
reviewed
the
current
business
mix
and
the
following
are
the
preliminary
list
of
key
group
markets
for
Carlsbad:
1. Biotech
a. Medical
device
industry
b. Lifestyle
companies
2. Sports
business
–
examples:
SKLZ*,
Golf
Manufacturing
Companies
3. Retail
–
Corporate
-‐
example:
Reef*
4. Incentive
a. Pharmaceutical
b. Financial
c. Insurance
d. C-‐level
5. Social,
Military,
Educational,
Religious
and
Fraternal
(SMERF)
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
65
6. Healthcare/Hospitals
*SAG
understands
that
both
SKLZ
and
Reef
are
current
clients
bringing
group
business
to
Carlsbad
hotel
properties.
These
companies
are
good
examples
of
markets
that
work
in
Carlsbad.
The
importance
of
finalizing
the
top
vertical
markets
is
to
give
direction
for
the
new
sales
efforts
and
where
to
focus
resources.
Technology
It
is
also
recommended
that
Visit
Carlsbad
obtain
an
effective
Sales
and
Marketing
software
platform
to
support
the
new
effort.
The
development
of
a
database
of
contacts
that
have
been
identified
as
having
potential
for
Carlsbad
as
well
as
the
ability
to
develop
targeted
direct
marketing
programs
are
two
examples
of
the
benefit
of
an
effective
sales
software
platform.
SAG
has
contacted
an
industry
software
supplier
who
has
given
a
preliminary
budget
estimate
that
has
been
factored
into
the
budget
below.
SAG
also
recommends
that
Visit
Carlsbad
continue
to
be
a
subscriber
to
MINT.
MINT
is
an
industry
driven
database
with
over
40,000
meetings
from
20,000
organizations.
This
will
be
an
important
tool
to
support
the
prospecting
efforts.
The
cost
for
the
subscription
is
$5,000.
Budget
The
following
is
an
initial
draft
of
the
budget
for
the
first
year
of
the
new
Group
Sales
and
Marketing
effort:
Staffing
–
Business
Development
Manager
(total
with
benefits)
$150,000
Familiarization
Trips
(two
trips
annually)
$20,000
Sales
Calls
$15,000
Technology/MINT
$15,000
Website
Development
$20,000
Digital
Sales
Tools
(photos,
video)
$20,000
E-‐marketing
$7,500
Total
$247,500
As
noted
in
the
introduction,
this
represents
approximately
50%
of
the
available
budget
dollars.
It
is
recommended
that
this
budget
is
finalized
as
part
of
the
implementation
plan.
Initial
Demand
Review
SAG
conducted
a
search
of
the
industry
national
meetings
database
(Mint)
and
found
that
there
are
2,300
groups
that
have
met
in
Southern
California
with
a
peak
room
night
requirement
of
25
–
500
rooms.
This
is
an
indicator
of
strong
demand
and
opportunity
for
group
business
in
Carlsbad.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
66
Goals
Setting
SAG
has
reviewed
a
preliminary
approach
to
setting
goals
for
the
new
sales
and
marketing
effort.
There
will
be
a
period
of
time
needed
for
organizational
items.
The
following
is
an
approach
to
setting
goals
for
the
first
full
year
of
operation:
Activity
Frequency
Desired
result
Familiarization
Trips
2
in
the
first
year
20
qualified
new
clients
annually
to
attend
External
Events/Shows
1
in
the
first
year
15
new
qualified
clients
annually
Business
Development
Activity
Ongoing
throughout
the
year
60
new
qualified
clients
annually
(5
per
month)
Direct
Marketing
3
awareness
campaigns
annually
30
new
qualified
clients
annually
Total
new
qualified
clients
-‐
first
year:
Total
Room
Nights
Booked
–
first
year:
125
1,875
Each
client
represents
150
total
room
nights
on
average.
The
new
qualified
clients
represent
18,750
new
room
nights.
The
percentage
of
new
clients
who
have
been
exposed
to
Carlsbad
who
will
book
in
the
first
year
is
projected
at
10%.
The
first
year
of
the
new
Sales
and
Marketing
effort
will
generate
1,875
new
room
nights.
This
number
will
grow
in
future
years
as
more
qualified
clients
are
added
to
the
database
and
book
meetings
in
the
future.
Raising
Awareness
of
Carlsbad
as
a
Group
Destination
Together
with
the
business
development
recommendations,
the
new
Group
Sales
and
Marketing
effort
must
focus
on
how
to
raise
awareness
of
Carlsbad
as
a
meetings
destination.
In
conjunction
with
the
identified
markets
that
will
produce
the
highest
return,
a
focused
plan
must
be
finalized
that
will
move
Carlsbad
to
a
group’s
destination
of
choice.
Components
of
the
approach
to
increase
awareness
will
include:
1. Social
Media
a. The
social
media
platforms
can
be
used
to
target
meeting
planners.
2. Direct
Marketing
a. The
development
of
a
qualified
client
database
will
create
a
platform
for
an
ongoing
direct
marketing
effort.
A
consistent
effort
will
keep
Carlsbad
top
of
mind
with
targeted
meeting
planners.
b. The
customers
found
in
the
MINT
database
should
also
receive
a
direct
marketing
piece
re-‐introducing
Carlsbad
as
a
meetings
destination.
SAG
has
conducted
surveys
of
over
10,000
meeting
planners
and
the
most
recent
surveys
point
out
the
need
to
create
meaningful
attendee
experiences.
This
includes
the
attendee
understanding
the
“brand”
of
the
destination
and
experiencing
the
unique
attributes
as
part
of
the
overall
meeting
plan.
The
further
development
of
the
Carlsbad
brand
and
unique
experience
for
the
group
market
will
be
an
integral
part
of
the
first
year.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
67
Group
Demand
for
Carlsbad
SAG,
in
conjunction
with
Visit
Carlsbad,
conducted
a
search
of
the
MINT
database
to
gain
a
preliminary
understanding
of
the
group
demand
for
Carlsbad.
The
parameters
for
the
search
were
groups
that
needed
25
to
500
rooms
on
their
“peak”
night
and
had
met
in
Southern
California
(and
the
central
coast).
The
following
chart
shows
the
breakdown
of
the
market
segments
of
the
groups
that
met
these
criteria
as
a
result
of
the
MINT
search:
The
breakdown
of
market
segments
demonstrates
that
many
of
the
segments
correspond
to
the
segments
identified
by
the
hotel
Directors
of
Sales
who
participated
in
the
development
of
the
Group
Sale
and
Marketing
Plan.
The
overall
universe
of
2,300
groups
representing
4,000
meetings
demonstrates
a
significant
market
for
future
meetings
in
Carlsbad.
HOBBY/VOCATIONAL
4%
HIGH
TECH/ELECTRIC/
COMPUTER
COMPANIES/USER
GROUPS
4%
ATHLETIC
&
SPORTS/RECREATION
6%
RELIGIOUS
7%
SCIENTIFIC,
ENGINEERING,
TECHNICAL,
COMPUTERS
8%
GOVERNMENT,
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION,
PUBLIC
AFFAIRS
10%
EDUCATIONAL
12%
THIRD
PARTY
PLANNER
13%
HEALTH
&
MEDICAL
14%
TRADE,
COMMERCIAL
OR
BUSINESS
22%
Top
10
Market
Segments
2,300
groups
Representing
4,000
meetings
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
68
Carlsbad
Conference
Center
There
is
an
opportunity
to
explore
the
feasibility
of
a
Conference
Center
being
built
in
Carlsbad.
There
are
many
factors
to
consider
in
determining
if
a
conference
center
would
have
an
overall
positive
impact
for
Carlsbad.
Those
factors
include
the
availability
of
a
suitable
site,
a
concentration
of
hotel
rooms
to
create
a
viable
room
block
within
close
proximity,
sufficient
demand,
adequate
funding
and
a
viable
ownership
and
operating
model.
SAG
conducted
a
search
of
meetings
that
had
met
in
Southern
California
and
required
500
to
1,000
hotel
rooms
simultaneously
with
an
attendance
of
800
to
2,000.
These
parameters
were
selected
because
these
groups
would
need
more
than
one
hotel
in
Carlsbad
and
potentially
a
Conference
Center
for
meeting
space.
The
search
produced
over
750
groups,
which
indicates
a
large
overall
demand
since
the
MINT
database
has
relatively
small
percentage
of
the
universe
of
meetings
that
would
fall
into
this
category.
The
next
steps
are
to
determine
if
there
are
available
viable
sites
and
conduct
a
full
feasibility
study.
It
should
be
noted
that
there
are
a
wide
range
of
models
and
facilities
that
should
be
considered.
A
new
facility
could
be
developed
that
was
flexible
to
handle
multiple
uses.
This
is
important
in
attracting
private
investment.
The
feasibility
study
should
take
into
account
the
combinations
of
uses
from
meetings
and
conferences
to
sporting
activities
and
project
the
implications
of
different
models.
Examples
of
multiuse
facilities
designed
to
host
a
wide
range
of
events.
Large
Group
Demand
750
Groups
identified
in
a
national
meetings
database
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
69
Conclusion
-‐
Group
Sales
and
Marketing
The
development
of
a
new
and
effective
group
sales
and
marketing
plan
will
require
the
collective
input
and
oversight
of
the
Board
of
Directors,
a
designated
committee,
and
Visit
Carlsbad.
The
opportunity
to
recruit
a
new
staff
member
and
finalize
the
overall
parameters
is
important
in
ensuring
that
the
efforts
are
complimentary
to
the
current
group
sales
efforts
of
the
Carlsbad
hotels.
With
this
in
mind,
SAG
recommends
the
development
of
a
group
sales
and
marketing
plan
as
outlined
above.
With
a
successful
effort,
the
definite
room
night
bookings
will
grow
significantly
as
qualified
client
databases
are
created
and
developed.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
70
Event
Development
The
development
of
events
that
will
bring
visitors
to
a
destination
during
periods
of
softer
demand
is
an
important
aspect
of
a
tourism
plan.
There
are
three
approaches
to
consider
in
the
development
of
an
overall
event
plan:
1. Are
there
current
events
that
could
develop
into
stronger
tourism
events
with
support
and
resources?
2. Are
there
events
in
other
destinations
that
would
be
successful
in
Carlsbad?
Can
Carlsbad
entice
the
event
organizers
to
relocate
or
create
a
similar
event
in
Carlsbad?
3. Should
Carlsbad
develop
its
own
signature
event
to
attract
visitors?
Could
a
new
event
that
was
unique
to
Carlsbad
have
a
larger
impact
on
the
Carlsbad
brand?
SAG
recommends
that
all
three
approaches
are
used
in
developing
an
annual
event
plan.
The
current
grant
program
that
is
administered
by
the
CTBID
Board
of
Directors
should
support
a
new
overall
approach
to
event
development.
Visit
Carlsbad,
in
conjunction
with
the
CTBID
staff,
would
present
a
proposal
annually
that
would
encompass
the
overall
approach
to
event
development
and
how
it
supports
the
overall
direction
of
the
marketing
plan.
The
current
events
that
are
funded
through
the
CTBID
grant
process
are:
Date
Room
nights
generated
Attendance
2.
Marathon
January
19,
2014
379
13,855
3.
Carlsbad
5000
March
29-‐30,
2014
2,686
7,333
4.
Film
Festival
September
18-‐21,
2014
75
(La
Costa)
4,500
5.
Carlsbad
Music
Festival
September
19-‐21,
2014
n/a
3,500
Event
Development
Current
Events
Relocamng
an
Event
Developing
a
new
event(s)
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
71
Event
Measurement
and
Reporting
It
is
critical
to
have
a
measurement
and
reporting
plan
for
all
events.
This
should
include
support
for
the
event
organizers
in
the
best
mechanisms
to
collect
the
data
that
is
needed.
SAG
discussions
with
the
CTBID
staff
indicated
there
was
an
opportunity
to
develop
a
consistent
approach
for
the
measurement
requirements
for
events
that
receive
support.
SAG
recommends
the
development
of
a
required
projection
and
measurement
component
as
a
requirement
for
all
events
receiving
CTBID
support.
Metrics
would
include:
1. Projected
Attendance
2. Marketing
Plan
Metrics
a. Traditional
Advertising
Reach
b. Online
activity
c. Social
Media
reach
3. Room
Nights
Generated
–
Tracking
Method
4. Economic
impact
–
(pre-‐approved
formula)
a. Direct
Spending
b. Tax
Generation
The
implementation
of
an
event
development
plan
will
have
quantitative
goals.
The
data
was
not
available
for
all
of
the
currently
funded
events.
This
goal
needs
to
be
developed
in
conjunction
with
the
overall
annual
goals.
In
the
area
of
larger
event
recruitment,
a
goal
of
one
new
large
event
every
two
years
would
be
aggressive,
yet
achievable.
SAG
recommends
establishing
a
goal
for
ongoing
event
development.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
72
The
Carlsbad
Experience
The
development
and
prioritization
of
the
Carlsbad
tourism
product
is
an
integral
part
of
the
long-‐term
strategic
plan.
The
following
are
recommendations
related
to
opportunities
to
continue
to
develop
and
enhance
the
overall
visitor
experience
in
Carlsbad.
The
results
of
the
research
highlighted
the
fact
that
after
the
beach
and
LEGOLAND,
the
recognition
of
other
attractions
or
amenities
dropped
off
significantly.
The
opportunity
going
forward
is
to
determine
the
highest
priorities
and
development
of
funding
and
recruitment
plans.
The
following
are
opportunities
SAG
recommends
for
future
capital
and
marketing
investment.
Transportation
System
The
development
of
a
transportation
system
to
connect
key
points
of
interest
such
as
the
Carlsbad
Village,
retail,
and
hotels
would
provide
an
opportunity
for
visitors
to
experience
Carlsbad
without
driving
and
navigating
parking.
This
system
could
be
funded
through
multiple
businesses
and
business
districts.
Competitive
destinations
have
launched
and
implemented
shuttles
and
services
for
tourism
purposes
to
accommodate
visitors
transportation
needs.
Santa
Monica
is
a
good
example
of
a
hotel-‐sponsored
tourism
shuttle
that
was
launched
in
May
of
2014.
The
Santa
Monica
shuttle
is
free
to
visitors
and
its
route
covers
Downtown
Santa
Monica,
the
Santa
Monica
Pier,
Main
Street,
and
Montana
Avenue
areas
and
is
available
at
select
hotels.
Pedestrians
can
flag
down
the
vehicles
to
be
transported
within
the
service
area.
The
service
runs
seven
days
a
week
from
11:30am
until
at
least
8pm,
later
on
weekends
and
for
special
events.
Pal1s.,dPS Parle
Oceana Santa Monica
S, zy l.ll le llPa
ho:e Wit poo
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
_ Palihouse Santa Monica
The Huntley Hotel
Ultriuoortere I g,f'Q
a!'EflhOu bar
Fainnont Miramar IC Hotel & Bungalows
.lassie I !Y Q flll
Amencan Motel
Hotel Shangri-La
Ar deco '51)('.'' WI a
poo rooftop bar
The Georgian Hotel
Ar deco 1a~~n-.,;1k
w1·h upscal rooms
<t '
!:I Hot Carmel
DoubleTree by Hilton
Hotel Santa Monica
AI-S<J ehot 3 OC S
Hotel Cahfom1a
Shutters on the Beach ~ c ,,.-rlJoet SIJOL C
poo II, i 0 teri s ~ Bayside Hot
Casadei Mar
.,,..,. ~pscal• lodQ nQ
Wl'h PV?WS
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
73
Carlsbad
Lagoon
–
Agua
Hedionda
The
Agua
Hedionda
and
neighboring
lagoons
create
an
opportunity
for
a
new
experience
and
are
currently
a
fairly
popular
visitor
experience.
The
below
graphic
delineates
the
different
entities
which
currently
have
rights
to
areas
of
the
Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon.
Based
on
research
and
stakeholder
conversations,
there
are
questions
surrounding
the
rights
and
ownership
of
different
parts
of
the
Lagoon.
Following
is
a
description
of
each
entity
that
operates
on
the
lagoon
and
their
rights
to
the
space:
¥ City
of
Carlsbad
–
The
City
does
not
own
the
land
or
the
water
but
has
the
right
to
grant
permits
for
motorboat
usage.
¥ California
Watersports
–
California
Watersports
is
a
private
operator
who
pays
rent
to
a
private
landowner
to
maintain
his
business
on
private
land
along
the
lagoon.
California
Watersports
also
pays
the
City
$1.00
per
boat
launch
for
individual
boats
and
personal
watercrafts.
California
Watersports
is
considered
a
vendor
of
the
City
because
of
the
existing
agreement
in
place.
¥ NRG
(Power
Company)
–
NRG
claims
ownership
of
the
surface
of
the
water
of
the
lagoon.
¥ YMCA
–
The
YMCA
entry
point
is
on
the
north
side
of
the
middle
section
of
the
Lagoon.
The
YMCA
leases
the
rights
to
use
the
Lagoon
from
the
power
company
(NRG).
It
is
understood
that
the
YMCA
lease
is
on
an
annual
renewal
with
a
60-‐day
notice.
In
previous
years,
the
City
used
to
lease
the
space
from
NRG
and
sublease
to
the
YMCA.
The
current
agreement
is
directly
between
NRG
and
the
YMCA.
¥ Hubbs
Sea
World
Research
Institute
–
The
Hubbs
Sea
World
Research
institute
owns
the
land
where
the
building
is
located
and
claims
ownership
of
the
surface
of
the
water
of
the
Lagoon.
Hubbs
Sea
World
Research
Institute
YMCA
California
Watersports
City
of
Carlsbad
Carlsbad
Aquafarm
NRG
Carlsbad
Desalination
Plant
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
74
¥ Carlsbad
Aquafarm
–
the
Carlsbad
Aquafarm
is
a
private
company
that
cultivates
Mediterranean
Blue
Mussels,
Pacific
Oysters
and
Ogo
for
sale
to
wholesalers
and
regional
restaurants.
The
Aquafarm
also
raises
different
“live
feed”
for
the
aquaria
trade
industry.
¥ Carlsbad
Desalination
Plant
–
The
Carlsbad
Desalination
Plant
is
owned,
operated
and
maintained
by
Poseidon
and
will
be
operational
in
2016.
The
site
of
the
desalination
plant
is
a
6-‐
acre
parcel
in
a
portion
of
the
site
that
leaves
the
majority
of
the
EPS
property
open
for
potential
recreational
or
redevelopment
activity.
The
entities
described
above
own,
lease,
or
have
access
to
the
Lagoon
and
are
all
separate
from
each
other.
The
current
organization
of
the
Lagoon
lacks
continuity
and
oversight.
The
City
has
an
opportunity
to
negotiate
and/or
increase
oversight
in
certain
areas
to
improve
the
Carlsbad
experience
when
it
comes
to
visitors
of
the
Lagoon.
SAG
feels
strongly
that
the
Lagoon
is
a
unique
asset
to
the
community
and
the
tourism
industry
and
the
City
is
positioned
to
capitalize
on
this
opportunity.
SAG
would
recommend
the
following
steps
to
improve
the
tourism
product
of
the
Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon:
1. Increase
the
parameters
and
quality
requirements
of
the
contract
with
California
Watersports.
The
City
collects
revenue
from
the
vendor
and
has
an
agreement
with
the
operator
although
the
lease
is
to
a
private
landowner.
At
the
next
opportunity,
the
City
should
require
higher
quality
standards
of
the
operator
in
order
to
clean
up
the
site
and
increase
the
quality
of
the
patron
experience.
In
conjunction
with
this,
Visit
Carlsbad
would
collaborate
in
the
development
of
the
annual
marketing
plan
to
include
the
overall
approach
to
promoting
the
lagoon
as
a
visitor
experience.
Visit
Carlsbad
would
also
proactively
obtain
visitor
feedback
to
evaluate
the
quality
of
services.
2. Begin
discussions
with
NRG
and
the
YMCA
about
the
current
agreement
and
the
best
way
for
the
City
to
make
improvements
for
tourism
and
access
for
visitors.
While
the
YMCA
is
an
important
community
organization,
they
currently
have
sole
rights
to
the
middle
section
of
the
Lagoon,
which
is
not
maximizing
the
asset
from
the
City’s
perspective.
Based
on
SAG’s
research,
the
lease
with
NRG
is
year-‐to-‐year,
which
presents
an
opportunity
to
the
City
to
get
involved
either
directly
with
NRG
or
sublease
from
the
YMCA.
3. Invest
in
a
capital
project
on
the
Lagoon
to
increase
the
visitor
experience.
SAG
conducted
research
and
through
stakeholder
conversations,
learned
that
the
YMCA’s
portion
of
the
Lagoon
is
largely
empty
and
presents
an
opportunity
for
an
investment.
SAG
recommends
completing
further
due
diligence
on
the
opportunity
to
invest
in
a
capital
project
such
as
a
Cable
Wake
Park
(pictured
below).
A
Cable
Wake
Park
is
a
tow
line
operated
by
an
electric
motor
on
a
series
of
towers.
This
creates
a
course
that
riders
on
wakeboards,
wakeskates,
waterskis,
and
wakesurfs
follow
on
a
tow
line.
The
courses
can
be
changed
and
updated
to
allow
for
different
levels
of
difficulty.
There
are
only
seven
Cable
Wake
Parks
in
California
and
none
along
the
coast.
Carlsbad
is
uniquely
positioned
to
host
a
Cable
Wake
Park
and
would
be
the
only
coastal
California
destination
to
have
an
asset
of
this
kind.
An
investment
in
a
Cable
Wake
Park
would
also
diversify
the
Carlsbad
tourism
product
because
the
age
range
for
riders
is
typically
older
than
the
current
target
market.
The
minimum
age
for
riders
at
most
Cable
Wake
Parks
is
8
years
old.
Typically
riders
are
in
their
teens
and
older.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
75
The
following
images
show
a
Cable
Wake
Park
and
how
it
could
impact
the
Lagoon
product:
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
76
Conference/Convention
Center
As
mentioned
in
the
previous
section,
SAG
recommends
conducting
a
more
in-‐depth
feasibility
study
to
determine
the
viability
of
a
conference/event
center
for
Carlsbad.
The
preliminary
demand
analysis
demonstrated
a
potential
groups
market
for
a
conference
center.
The
feasibility
study
should
include
site
selection,
flexible
uses
and
the
range
of
ownership
and
management
models.
This
study
could
be
completed
in
a
cost
effective
manner
with
support
from
Visit
Carlsbad
in
demand
validation.
Carlsbad
Village
The
Carlsbad
Village
provides
a
central
business
district
for
visitors
staying
in
all
areas
of
Carlsbad
to
enjoy.
SAG
has
reviewed
the
current
collaborative
marketing
between
Visit
Carlsbad
and
the
Village.
This
was
illustrated
in
the
low
referral
numbers
from
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website.
There
is
an
opportunity
to
fully
integrate
the
collective
marketing
resources
and
activities.
One
important
note
in
reviewing
feedback
received
by
visitors
and
stakeholders
is
that
Carlsbad
Village
is
not
mentioned
often
as
an
“attraction”
when
describing
Carlsbad
as
a
destination.
This
could
be
due
to
the
ongoing
need
to
expand
the
experiences
as
well
as
a
lack
of
a
cohesive
marketing
approach
to
increasing
awareness
and
driving
visitation.
SAG
met
with
Urban
Place
Consulting
to
gain
additional
insight
on
current
activities.
The
Village
has
had
capital
investment
in
streetscapes,
way
finding
and
lighting.
They
have
also
developed
an
active
event
schedule
as
a
tool
to
increase
visitation.
The
recent
plan
developed
for
the
Village
included
the
intent
to
have
an
ongoing
collaborative
relationship
with
Visit
Carlsbad.
SAG
recommends
that
this
is
established
in
the
future.
The
collaboration
should
include
the
development
of
a
joint
marketing
plan
annually
and
involvement
in
.--~0.. ......... 111 ~,..-,,--1
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
77
both
organizations
by
the
Executive
Directors.
This
should
include
participation
in
both
boards
of
directors.
The
Village
is
also
undertaking
the
challenge
of
gaining
support
and
ultimately
creating
a
PBID
designed
to
produce
an
ongoing
funding
stream
to
support
future
economic
development
activity
as
well
as
marketing.
The
suggested
budget
for
the
Property-‐based
Improvement
District
(PBID)
should
be
reviewed
and
supported
by
the
tourism
industry
after
any
suggestions
are
made
for
modifications.
In
the
area
of
product
development,
the
current
capital
requests
that
will
have
the
greatest
impact
on
the
visitor
experience
in
the
village
should
be
a
priority
for
advocacy
support
by
Visit
Carlsbad.
These
would
include
items
that
will
improve
the
look
and
feel
of
the
Village.
The
ongoing
development
of
the
Village
creates
a
more
viable
Carlsbad
experience
for
visitors
SAG
also
reviewed
the
potential
of
a
transportation
system
that
would
connect
the
Carlsbad
Village
to
retail
opportunities
as
well
as
hotels
and
spas.
There
was
support
for
this
and
an
interest
in
being
involved
with
the
development
of
a
plan.
SAG
recommends
the
following
1. A
more
collaborative
approach
to
marketing
including
the
development
of
an
annual
marketing
plan
2. A
determination
of
which
proposed
capital
projects
warrant
support
and
have
the
highest
tourism
value.
3. Review
and
support
of
the
current
proposed
PBID
based
on
agreed
upon
funding
strategies
4. Participation
in
Visit
Carlsbad
and
the
Carlsbad
Village
Association
board
of
directors
by
each
organization.
In
2014,
there
were
100
total
web
referrals
from
the
Visit
Carlsbad
website
to
the
Carlsbad
Village
website.
This
is
an
indicator
of
a
future
opportunity
to
increase
the
collaboration
and
cross
promotional
opportunities.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
78
Beach
Camping
Beach
Camping
is
a
popular
activity
in
Carlsbad
with
over
200
spaces
available
on
a
daily
basis.
The
program
is
administered
by
the
State
of
California
with
rates
ranging
from
$35
to
$50
per
day
with
second
and
third
vehicles
at
$15
each
for
entry.
The
opportunity
exists
to
add
landscaping
and/or
create
new
standards
on
the
types
of
vehicles
that
are
allowed
on
the
site.
Currently,
the
state-‐operated
park
is
open
year-‐round
and
experiences
a
similar
seasonal
swing
the
Carlsbad
hotel
properties
experience.
Reservations
for
beach
camping
are
made
through
ReserveAmerica.com
and
can
be
made
up
to
seven
months
in
advance.
Reserve
America
lists
the
following
state-‐approved
vendors
for
RV
delivery:
Albert's
RV,
Luv
2
Camp,
MLG
Enterprises
RV
Rentals,
and
Travel
Time
RV.
The
State
of
California
limits
the
size
of
RV’s
and
campers
to
35
feet
in
length.
Each
campsite
can
hold
up
to
three
vehicles
and
eight
people.
During
the
peak
beach
camping
season
(March-‐November),
campers
are
limited
to
seven
consecutive
nights
and
must
vacate
the
park
for
24
hours
before
returning
for
additional
nights.
During
the
off
season,
campers
are
limited
to
14
consecutive
nights
before
having
to
vacate
the
camp.
The
maximum
stay
for
campers
is
30
days
annually.
As
of
December
2014,
over
80%
of
the
campsites
available
to
book
are
sold
out.
Historically,
the
beach
camping
reservations
from
June-‐August
will
be
sold
out
by
March.
The
images
below
show
the
length
of
the
beach
camping
sites
and
also
how
the
sites
look
from
the
nearby
hotel
properties:
Beach
Camping
Map
' I ,,
South End Sitn 131-222
rr-----------,;;-----;--------;--,----,i, .. --' -
PAOFICOCEAN ----------------------~ , ______ _
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
79
View
of
Beach
Camping
sites
from
above
at
the
Hilton
Ocean
Front
location
View
of
Beach
Camping
sites
from
street
level
at
the
Hilton
Ocean
Front
location
Beach
Camping
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
80
Beach
Camping
is
a
valuable
asset
to
Carlsbad
and
also
presents
a
different
type
of
product
for
different
segments
of
visitors
not
staying
in
the
hotels.
SAG
understands
that
while
it
is
valuable
to
the
specific
segments
it
could,
at
times,
have
negative
implications
on
hospitality
properties
on
the
beach
and
the
overall
beach
experience.
The
view
from
an
oceanfront
room
is
not
what
guests
expect
when
paying
for
an
oceanfront
view.
This
could
have
an
impact
on
rates
and
the
percentage
of
return
visitors.
SAG
recommends
the
City
begin
dialogue
with
the
California
Department
of
Recreation
and
Parks
to
understand
the
City’s
rights
in
increasing
guests’
requirements
and
the
City’s
ability
to
plant
taller
privacy
shrubs
and
hedges
in
order
to
differentiate
the
spaces
and
provide
an
added
level
of
quality
for
the
patrons
of
the
camp
and
the
patrons
of
oceanfront
hotel
properties.
SAG
also
recommends
the
CTBID
facilitate
further
discussions
with
the
State
of
California
to
increase
the
quality
of
the
beach
camping
product
to
convert
some
of
the
RV
sites
to
rental
safari
tents,
yurts,
mini-‐cabins,
or
furnished
AirStream
"retro"
RVs.
Similar
products
are
currently
offered
in
Santa
Barbara.
Packages
developed
in
concert
with
the
state
could
include
partnerships
with
area
hotels
for
spa
services,
dining
experiences,
etc.
to
further
increase
the
beach
camping
product.
The
recommendations
delineated
above,
in
conjunction
with
the
current
retail
projects
that
are
under
development,
will
continue
to
advance
Carlsbad
as
a
destination.
SAG
recommends
adopting
these
recommendations
and
determining
the
steps
needed
to
begin
the
respective
processes.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
81
Governance
SAG
has
researched
and
developed
several
governance
models
in
tourism
organizations
nationally.
The
funding
models
as
well
as
type
of
organization
are
practical
factors
in
determining
the
most
effective
approach.
There
are
key
principles
to
consider
in
determining
the
most
effective
governance
model.
These
include:
1. Governance
and
Accountability
2.
Financial
Oversight
3. Legal
Compliance
and
Public
Disclosure
Effective
Governance
and
Accountability
The
success
of
the
proposed
approach
will
depend
on
the
level
of
accountability
and
effective
oversight
of
the
governing
body.
This
includes
engagement
and
involvement
in
setting
annual
measurable
goals
and
monitoring
results
on
a
regular
basis.
Effective
governance
also
includes
industry
leaders
committing
to
invest
the
time
in
providing
support
and
guidance
to
the
executive
director.
There
have
been
many
stakeholders
who
have
expressed
interest
in
the
future
of
tourism
in
Carlsbad.
The
success
of
the
implementation
of
the
recommendations
will
also
depend
on
the
level
of
commitment
from
the
tourism
industry
in
accepting
governance
roles
and
actively
participating.
Strong
Financial
Oversight
The
fiscal
oversight
of
the
resources
allocated
to
Carlsbad
tourism
is
an
area
of
focus
in
effective
governance.
This
includes
the
compliance
with
General
Accepted
Accounting
Principles
(GAAP)
as
well
as
instituting
processes
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
key
expenditures.
SAG’s
recommendations
include
significant
re-‐allocation
of
resources
with
an
emphasis
on
key
metrics
and
a
focus
on
monitoring
quantitative
results.
The
governing
body
must
actively
participate
in
the
development
of
this
approach
to
ensure
success.
Legal
Compliance
and
Public
Disclosure
The
area
of
legal
compliance
is
generally
overseen
by
a
board
and
outside
legal
counsel
working
collaboratively
with
the
City
Attorney.
The
area
of
public
disclosure
includes
the
importance
of
communicating
the
results
of
the
tourism
efforts
in
a
manner
that
is
easily
understood
by
a
broad
base
of
stakeholders.
An
effective
governance
model
will
monitor
industry
communications
and
solicit
input
on
the
overall
effectiveness
of
this
effort.
The
feedback
that
has
been
received
in
this
process
indicates
a
need
to
increase
and
focus
future
communication.
These
areas
point
out
the
importance
of
an
active
and
effective
governance
approach
for
the
future
of
tourism.
The
current
model
creates
a
scenario
where
there
are
effectively
two
governing
boards.
Below
are
the
current
stated
purposes
of
the
CTBID
and
Visit
Carlsbad:
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
82
In
review
of
these
two
statements
above
it
is
clear
that
the
CTBID
and
Visit
Carlsbad
have
very
similar
purposes.
Both
governing
bodies
are
responsible
for
the
oversight
of
Tourism
Marketing
for
the
City
of
Carlsbad.
This
includes
the
fact
that
both
boards
approve
the
annual
marketing
plan
and
budget
for
tourism
expenditures.
Boards
of
Directors
–
CTBID
and
Visit
Carlsbad
The
following
are
current
members
of
the
CTBID
Board:
¥ Hector
Becerra,
Holiday
Inn
Carlsbad
by
the
Sea
¥ Bill
Canepa,
Hilton
Garden
Inn
Carlsbad
Beach*
¥ Larry
Magor,
Omni
La
Costa
Resort
and
Spa*
¥ Kim
Akers,
West
Inn
and
Suites*
¥ Nancy
Nayudu,
Pelican
Cove
Inn
Bed
&
Breakfast
¥ Timothy
Stripe,
Grand
Pacific
Resorts*
¥ Vacant
Position,
Park
Hyatt
Aviara
Hotel
Updated
January
2015
Current
stated
purpose
of
the
Carlsbad
Tourism
Business
Improvement
District
(CTBID)
• To
administer
marke`ng
and
visitor
programs
to
promote
the
City
of
Carlsbad
as
a
tourism
visitor
des`na`on
and
to
fund
projects,
programs,
and
ac`vi`es,
including
appropriate
administra`ve
charges
that
benefit
hotels
within
the
boundaries
of
the
District.
Current
stated
purpose
of
Visit
Carlsbad
• The
main
purpose
of
the
Carlsbad
DMO
is
to
execute
an
annual
business
plan
on
behalf
of
the
City
of
Carlsbad
Tourism
Business
Improvement
District
(CTBID).
The
DMO
shall
target
commercial
and
leisure
travelers
and
other
poten`al
hotel
guests
in
order
to
s`mulate
demand
of
Carlsbad’s
hotel
community
and
other
services.
This
business
will
result
in
direct
commercial
benefit
of
the
tourism
community
and
will
indirectly
benefit
the
City
of
Carlsbad
and
its
ci`zens.
The
DMO’s
vision
for
Carlsbad
is
to
become
a
well-‐recognized
travel
des`na`on
in
California
and
a
preferred
family
des`na`on
in
the
Southern
California
Region.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
83
The
following
are
current
members
of
Visit
Carlsbad
Board
of
Directors:
¥ Mike
Swyney,
Hilton
Garden
Inn
Carlsbad
Beach*
¥ Patsy
Bock,
Omni
La
Costa
Spa
and
Resort*
¥ Julie
Zahner,
Sheraton
Carlsbad
Resort
&
Spa*
¥ Peter
Kock,
LEGOLAND
California
¥ Jason
McLaughlin,
Park
Hyatt
Aviara
Resort*
¥ Linda
Hopkins,
West
Inn
&
Suites
¥ Janissa
Reyes,
Carlsbad
Premium
Outlets*
*Board
members
from
the
same
organizations
Updated
January
2015
The
composition
of
both
Boards
of
Directors
is
primarily
hotel
industry
leaders
and
those
designated
above
are
members
who
come
from
the
same
organization.
This
indicates
a
potential
opportunity
to
create
a
singular
governing
body
with
committees
that
are
focused
on
the
key
areas
for
Carlsbad
tourism.
This
would
concentrate
the
oversight
of
the
key
planning
tools
and
overall
accountability
with
one
Board
of
Directors.
This
restructuring
would
also
allow
for
industry
leaders
to
focus
on
specific
sales
and
marketing
initiatives
through
a
committee
structure.
In
the
proposed
structure,
the
respective
entities
would
remain
separate,
however
they
would
have
common
oversight.
Another
benefit
of
a
streamlined
governance
model
is
the
increased
opportunity
for
the
Visit
Carlsbad
staff
and
City
staff
to
collaborate
in
supporting
agreed
upon
tourism
initiatives.
Four
committees
are
recommended
to
focus
on
financial
oversight,
industry
reporting
and
communication,
leisure
sales
and
marketing,
and
group
sales
and
marketing.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
84
Current
Governance
Model
–
Carlsbad
Tourism
Carlsbad
City
Council
CTBID
Staff
(City
Staff)
CTBID
Grants
CTBID
Board
Visit
Carlsbad
Board
Visit
Carlsbad
Execumve
Director
Staff
(PR
&
Visitor
Center)
Outside
Vendors
(Mindgruve
&
DCI)
Commiyees
SR
Assistant
City
Ayorney
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
85
Recommended
Future
Carlsbad
Tourism
Governance
Model
Carlsbad
City
Council
SR
City
Ayorney
City
Staff
CTBID/Visit
Carlsbad
Board
Visit
Carlsbad
Execumve
Director
Staff
Outside
Vendors
Commiyees
Financial
Oversight
Commiyee
Industry
Repormng
&
Communicamon
Commiyee
Leisure
Sales
&
Markemng
Commiyee
Group
Sales
&
Markemng
Commiyee
Event
Program
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
86
SAG
recommends
the
implementation
of
the
above
illustrated
governance
model.
This
will
streamline
the
oversight
of
tourism
marketing
activities
and
increase
the
opportunity
for
active
involvement
in
key
initiatives
as
part
of
effective
implementation
and
on-‐going
success.
Budget
The
recommendations
contained
in
this
report
relative
to
future
sales
and
marketing
initiatives
can
be
implemented
within
the
current
resources
of
the
CTBID
and
Visit
Carlsbad.
The
proposed
increases
in
funding
create
the
opportunity
to
increase
the
penetration
in
targeted
markets
and
develop
a
capital
fund
to
support
product
and
event
development.
The
following
is
an
overview
of
the
proposed
budget
that
encompasses
the
sales
and
marketing
recommendations
Highlights
of
these
recommendations
include:
Develop
a
Group
Sales
and
Marketing
Effort
The
proposed
budget
takes
into
account
the
resources
needed
to
develop
a
Group
Sales
and
Marketing
initiative.
The
approach
creates
an
equal
division
of
resources
between
Group
Sales
and
Marketing
and
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing.
New
Position
–
Business
Development
Manager
The
proposed
budget
has
an
added
senior
position.
The
proposed
Business
Development
Manager
position
is
outlined
in
the
groups
sales
and
marketing
section
of
the
report.
This
senior
level
position
would
be
responsible
for
the
oversight
and
execution
of
the
group
sales
and
marketing
plan
as
well
as
a
focused
approach
to
group
business
development.
Refocus
of
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing
The
overall
resources
dedicated
to
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing
have
been
reduced
and
refocused
on
direct
marketing.
There
is
an
increase
in
resources
tied
to
Direct
Marketing
and
the
creation
of
Carlsbad
experiences
and
packages.
There
is
a
reduction
in
the
resources
allocated
to
awareness
campaigns
and
a
reallocation
of
resources
tied
to
Search
Engine
Optimization
and
Social
Media
Management.
Targeted
Public
Relations
Effort
The
budget
has
been
reduced
and
the
recommendation
is
to
focus
all
PR
efforts
in
the
vehicles
that
are
effective
with
the
targeted
audiences
in
both
the
leisure
and
group
sales
efforts.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
87
Research
The
proposed
budget
has
an
increase
in
annual
resources
for
research.
This
will
enable
Visit
Carlsbad
to
refine
target
markets
on
an
annual
basis.
The
chart
below
is
a
summary
of
the
reallocations
of
the
current
Visit
Carlsbad
budget
to
support
the
implementation
of
the
recommendations.
Leisure
–
Interactive
Marketing
Breakdown
Visit
Carlsbad
FY2015
SAG
Proposed
Variance
Leisure-‐Interactive
Marketing
331,609
182,000
149,609
¥ Google
(Paid
Search)
162,737
80,000
82,737
¥ Display
/
Mobile
(Paid
Search)
43,155
43,155
¥ Media
Buying/Planning
(Paid
Search)
30,555
15,000
15,555
¥ SEO
22,807
12,000
10,807
¥ Email
Marketing
18,000
65,000
-‐47,000
¥ Social
Media
Management
17,000
10,000
7,000
Google
(Paid
Search),
49%
Display
/
Mobile
(Paid
Search),
13%
Media
Buying/
Planning
(Paid
Search),
9%
SEO,
7%
Email
Markemng,
6%
Social
Media
Management,
5%
Agency
Fees,
11%
FY
2015
Leisure
-‐
InteracWve
MarkeWng
Breakdown
Google
(Paid
Search)
Display
/
Mobile
(Paid
Search)
Media
Buying/Planning
(Paid
Search)
SEO
Email
Markemng
Social
Media
Management
Agency
Fees
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
88
The
charts
above
reflect
the
shift
in
focus
for
future
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing.
This
reflects
the
shift
to
a
direct
marketing
approach
with
a
smaller
budget
that
is
focused
on
the
shoulder
periods.
Overall
Sales
and
Marketing
Expenditures
The
following
charts
demonstrate
the
overall
shift
in
resources
from
the
current
budget
to
a
proposed
reallocation
of
resources
to
support
the
overall
recommendations
Google
(Paid
Search)
39%
Media
Buying/
Planning
(Paid
Search)
7%
SEO
6%
Email
Markemng
32%
Social
Media
Management
5%
Agency
Fees
11%
SAG
Propsed
Leisure
-‐
InteracWve
MarkeWng
Breakdown
Google
(Paid
Search)
Display
/
Mobile
(Paid
Search)
Media
Buying/Planning
(Paid
Search)
SEO
Email
Markemng
Social
Media
Management
Agency
Fees
2%
Leisure
-‐
Interacmve
Markemng
(Includes
PR),
83%
Group
Direct
Sales
(Ear
marked),
10%
3%
1%
1%
Sales
&
MarkeWng
Expeditures
(current
FY15)
Research
Leisure
-‐
Interacmve
Markemng
(Includes
PR)
Group
Direct
Sales
(Ear
marked)
Travel
&
Ent
Dues
&
Subscripmons
Collateral
Producmon
&
Fullfillment
■
■
■
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
89
The
charts
above
and
the
table
below
reflect
the
proposed
shift
in
resources.
Current
FY15
Promotional
Programs
Breakdown
SAG
Proposed
Promotional
Programs
Breakdown
Research
8,000
Research
11,000
Leisure
-‐Interactive
Marketing
(Includes
PR)
412,609
Leisure
-‐
Interactive
Marketing
(Includes
PR)
225,500
Group
Direct
Sales
(Earmarked)
50,000
Group
Direct
Sales**
Includes
Salary
247,500
Travel
&
Ent
15,000
Travel
&
Ent
2,500
Dues
&
Subscriptions
5,000
Dues
&
Subscriptions
5,000
Collateral
Production
&
Fulfillment
5,000
Collateral
Production
&
Fulfillment
5,000
Total
$495,609
Total
$496,000
It
reflects
a
50/50
allocation
of
resources
between
the
group
and
leisure
group
sales
and
marketing
activities.
SAG
recommends
this
allocation
in
conjunction
with
stakeholder
input
and
recommended
shift
in
approach
in
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing.
2%
Leisure
-‐
Interacmve
Markemng
(Includes
PR),
45%
Group
Direct
Sales
(Includes
Salary),
50%
1%
1%
1%
SAG
Proposed
Sales
&
MarkeWng
Expenditures
Research
Leisure
-‐
Interacmve
Markemng
(Includes
PR)
Group
Direct
Sales
(Includes
Salary)
Travel
&
Ent
Dues
&
Subscripmons
Collateral
Producmon
&
Fullfillment
■
■
■
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
■
■
■
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
90
Overall
Current
and
Proposed
Budget
The
following
reflects
the
current
line
item
budget
for
Visit
Carlsbad
and
the
recommended
reallocations
to
support
the
proposed
new
directions
in
leisure
and
group
sales
and
marketing.
INCOME
Public'Sources
CTBID'Revenues
Private'Source'Income
Total'Public'Sources
Carry'Over'from'2013
Adopted
'FY15'
Budget'
755,500'''''
755,500
SAG'SAG'Variance SAG'Variance
Proposed'Budget 'to'FY15'
Budget'Dollars'
Difference
'to'FY15'
Budget'Percent
755,500'''''''''''''''755,500'''''''''
755,500 755,500
TOTAL'INCOME
EXPENSE
Labor
Salaries
Payroll'Taxes
Works'Comp
Benefits
Total'Labor
Promotional'Programs
Advertising'&'Production
Research
LeisureSInteractive'Marketing
Google'(Paid'Search)
Display'/'Mobile'(Paid'Search)
Media'Buying/Planning'(Paid'Search)
SEO
Email'Marketing
Social'Media'Management
Agency'Fees
Group'Direct'Sales
Familiarization'Trips'(2'annually)
Sales'Calls
Technology/MINT
Website'Development
Digital'Sales'Tools
Emarketing
Outside'ServicesSPublic'Relations
Public'Relations'Events
Travel'&'Entertainment
Dues'&'Subscription
Collateral'Production'&'Fulfillment
Total'Promotional'Programs
755,500
189,817
17,000
4,000
23,000
233,817'''''
5,000''''''''
8,000''''''''
162,737'''''
43,155'''''''
30,555'''''''
22,807'''''''
18,000'''''''
17,000'''''''
37,355'''''''
50,000'''''''
S''''''''''''
S''''''''''''
S''''''''''''
S''''''''''''
S''''''''''''
S''''''''''''
70,000'''''''
6,500''''''''
15,000'''''''
5,000''''''''
5,000''''''''
496,109'''''
755,500 755,500
289,817$'''''''''''''100,000$'''''''35%
27,000 37%
6,100 34%
37,500 39%
360,417.00$'''''''''126,600$'''''''35%
5,000.00$''''''''''''S$''''''''''''''0%
11,000.00$'''''''''''3,000$'''''''''''27%
80,000.00$'''''''''''(82,737)$''''''''S103%
S$''''''''''''''''''''
15,000.00$'''''''''''(15,555)$''''''''S104%
12,000.00$'''''''''''(10,807)$''''''''S90%
65,000.00$'''''''''''47,000$'''''''''72%
10,000.00$'''''''''''(7,000)$''''''''''S70%
21,840.00$'''''''''''(15,515)$''''''''S71%
92,500.00$'''''''''''42,500$'''''''''46%
20,000.00$'''''''''''20,000$'''''''''100%
15,000.00$'''''''''''15,000$'''''''''100%
10,000.00$'''''''''''10,000$'''''''''100%
20,000.00$'''''''''''20,000$'''''''''100%
20,000.00$'''''''''''20,000$'''''''''100%
7,500.00$''''''''''''7,500$'''''''''''100%
35,000.00$'''''''''''(35,000)$''''''''S100%
3,500.00$''''''''''''(3,000)$''''''''''S86%
2,500.00$''''''''''''(12,500)$''''''''S500%
5,000.00$''''''''''''S$''''''''''''''0%
5,000.00$''''''''''''S$''''''''''''''0%
363,340.00$'''''''''(132,769)$''''''S36.5%
v&ir.1. b d cars a
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
I I I
,.
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
91
The
proposed
budget
above
includes
the
recommended
changes
in
the
leisure
sales
and
marketing
efforts
as
well
as
group
sales
and
marketing.
The
proposed
budget
does
not
include
capital/product
recommendations
from
the
previous
sections
including:
¥ Feasibility
study
for
conference
center
¥ Feasibility
study
for
Lagoon
improvements
¥ Implementation
of
beach
camping
improvements
¥ Any
capital
improvements
related
to
product
development
General'Administration
Bank'Charges
Equipment'Rental'&'Maintenance
Facility'Repair'&'Maintenance
Insurance
Grounds'Maintenance
Office'Supplies
Postage
Taxes
Telephone
Professional'Services
Volunteer'Program
Miscellaneous
Utilities
Computer'Expense
Total'G&A
TOTAL'EXPENSE
1,000''''''''
3,000''''''''
150'''''''''''
1,200''''''''
2,000''''''''
974'''''''''''
150'''''''''''
5,000''''''''
5,600''''''''
1,000''''''''
1,000''''''''
2,500''''''''
2,000''''''''
25,574'''''''
755,500
1,000''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
3,000''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
150'''''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
1,200''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
U$''''''''''''''
2,000''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
974'''''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
150'''''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
7,500''''''''''''''''''2,500$'''''''''''33%
5,600''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
1,000''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
3,500''''''''''''''''''2,500$'''''''''''71%
2,500''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
2,000''''''''''''''''''U$''''''''''''''0%
30,574.00$'''''''''''5,000$'''''''''''16%
754,331.00$'''''''''(1,169)$''''''''''0.7%
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
92
Funding
The
results
of
the
benchmarking
research
indicated
that
the
level
of
funding
for
tourism
marketing
was
low
compared
to
other
comparable
destinations.
The
current
visitor
levels
during
the
shoulder
periods
signify
the
importance
of
dedicated
tourism
resources
in
the
future.
The
ratio
of
tourism
dollars
to
hotel
rooms
was
a
key
indicator
as
Carlsbad
was
the
second
lowest
in
the
competitive
set
that
was
reviewed.
Another
important
outcome
of
the
benchmarking
study
was
the
fact
that
Carlsbad
was
the
only
city
with
no
TOT
funding
for
tourism
marketing.
SAG
recommends
taking
a
comprehensive
approach
to
finalizing
a
new
funding
plan
for
the
future
of
tourism.
A
combination
of
broad
stakeholder
involvement
and
a
restructuring
of
the
current
approach
to
TOT
funding
is
the
foundation
of
the
recommendation.
The
funding
recommendations
are
predicated
on
the
approval,
adoption,
and
implementation
of
the
stakeholder
supported
recommendations
contained
in
this
report.
Without
stakeholder
support
for
future
tourism
efforts,
SAG
does
not
recommend
instituting
new
funding
strategies.
Currently
the
TOT
percentage
in
Carlsbad
is
10%.
This
provides
an
opportunity
to
potentially
increase
the
TOT
in
Carlsbad
for
dedicated
marketing
and
tourism
product
development
efforts.
The
below
charts,
also
included
in
the
benchmarking
section
of
this
report,
illustrate
the
competitive
destinations’
handling
of
TOT
collection
and
distribution.
The
chart
below
shows
the
TOT
collection
rate
imposed
on
hotel
rooms
by
the
competitive
city
governments.
New
Funding
Approach
Components
The
following
are
viable
components
of
a
new
approach
to
funding:
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
TOT
CollecWon
Rate
to
City
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
93
1. Transient
Occupancy
Tax
Options
a. Increase
the
current
TOT
rate
charged
to
Carlsbad
Hotels
i. In
conjunction
with
a
dedicated
commitment
to
spend
the
incremental
dollars
on
agreed
upon
marketing
efforts
as
well
as
Tourism
product
development,
the
TOT
rate
can
be
increased
to
12%.
This
will
raise
two
to
three
million
dollars
annually.
The
review
of
competitive
destinations
indicates
an
opportunity
to
raise
the
TOT
percentage
collected
without
a
significant
impact
on
occupancy.
b. Reallocate
a
portion
of
the
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
to
Tourism
Marketing
i. SAG
recommends
in
addition
that
a
portion
of
the
current
TOT
is
allocated
to
tourism
marketing.
The
formula
for
this
would
expand
and
contract
based
on
the
overall
TOT
collected.
This
allocation
would
also
be
predicated
on
the
achievement
of
agreed
upon
goals.
This
“pay
for
performance”
approach
will
support
the
overall
goal
of
supporting
measurable
tourism
activities
in
the
future.
The
below
chart
shows
in
ascending
order
the
destinations
that
receive
a
percentage
of
the
TOT
funding.
SAG
recommends
that
10%
of
the
TOT
is
allocated
in
the
first
year
with
an
incentive
plan
in
place
that
could
increase
this
to
20%.
2. Create
a
larger
“district”
to
include
the
Carlsbad
restaurant
industry
Restaurants
in
Carlsbad
are
beneficiaries
of
effective
tourism
marketing.
They
are
featured
in
all
of
the
tourism
marketing
materials
and
sales
tax
revenues
show
an
increase
in
restaurant
activity
during
times
with
strong
visitor
demand.
The
segments
that
have
been
identified
in
the
lifestyle
segment
study
are
also
inclined
to
dine
out
when
they
are
traveling.
The
success
of
these
targeted
efforts
will
have
a
direct
impact
on
the
restaurant
industry.
The
restaurants
that
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Carlsbad
Coronado
Laguna
Beach
Hunmngton
Beach
Santa
Monica
Santa
Barbara
Newport
Beach
Current
Percent
of
TOT
Received
by
DMO
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
94
would
be
included
in
an
expanded
district
would
be
those
that
are
the
most
positively
impacted
by
tourism
efforts.
Similar
DMOs
have
included
restaurants
and
other
industries
to
support
the
tourism
organization.
For
example,
Mammoth
Lakes
Tourism
in
California
leverages
the
following
assessments
on
non-‐hotel
entities
to
support
the
tourism
industry:
Also,
Visit
California
applies
an
assessment
to
multiple
industries
that
partner
with
the
state
organization.
The
current
assessment
rate
for
accommodations,
restaurants,
retailers,
attractions,
transportation
companies
and
travel
service
providers
that
have
gross
California
receipts
of
$1
million
or
more
is
0.065%,
and
is
applied
only
to
tourism-‐related
revenues.
SAG
also
recommends
that
additional
industries
are
considered
for
inclusion
in
the
CTBID
in
the
future
3. Increase
or
modify
the
current
CTBID
fees
Feedback
from
the
hotel
community
indicated
little
interest
in
increasing
the
current
CTBID
fees
until
an
industry
supported
plan
was
adopted.
In
conjunction
with
the
approval
and
adoption
of
the
agreed
upon
recommendations,
SAG
recommends
an
increase
of
50
cents
per
occupied
room
to
begin
in
the
fiscal
year
of
2016.
The
implementation
of
the
recommendations
would
be
well
underway
at
this
point.
Another
option
would
be
to
modify
the
current
CTBID
format
to
a
percentage
of
the
participating
hotel
rate.
This
could
potentially
raise
additional
funds
and
reallocate
funding
based
on
the
overall
revenue
generation.
SAG
estimates
that
the
combination
of
the
recommended
funding
would
raise
between
$1.5
and
3
million
dollars.
With
the
new
additional
revenue
raised,
Visit
Carlsbad’s
budget
could
increase
to
$1,755,500
with
an
additional
fund
developed
for
future
Carlsbad
tourism
product
development.
This
would
move
Carlsbad
to
$399
marketing
dollars
per
hotel
room.
The
goal
for
increased
funding
is
to
create
more
frequency
in
impacting
the
targeted
markets
that
have
been
identified
through
research
and
stakeholder
input.
The
increased
funding
would
warrant
increasing
the
leisure
and
group
room
night
goals.
The
other
important
opportunity
would
be
to
have
more
resources
for
recruiting
or
developing
new
signature
events.
The
development
of
a
tourism
capital
development
fund
creates
the
opportunity
to
support
projects
including
a
new
transportation
system,
the
Carlsbad
Village
efforts,
the
feasibility
study
of
the
¥Restaurants
–
1.5%
of
gross
sales
¥Attractions
(ski
resorts)
–
2%
of
all
lift
ticket
sales
¥Retail
–
1.5%
of
gross
sales
~~
CALIFORNIA
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
95
conference
center
and
enhancement
to
the
lagoon
experience.
SAG
recommends
this
from
a
portion
of
the
fund
raised
with
the
above
recommendations.
Return
on
Investment
The
goal
of
an
increased
funding
stream
for
Carlsbad’s
tourism
efforts
is
to
create
an
increased,
measureable
return
on
investment.
The
new
recommendations
for
future
tourism
marketing
efforts
will
provide
“trackable”
data
to
determine
the
overall
economic
return.
Based
on
a
blended
spending
multiplier
for
a
visitor
to
Carlsbad
of
$328
per
person*,
the
new
recommended
funding
must
generate
an
additional
3,050
visitors
annually
to
“breakeven”
on
the
new
marketing
expenses
(assumes
1
million
in
new
marketing
revenue).
Many
destinations
strive
for
7
to
1
rate
of
return
for
dollars
expended
compared
to
direct
spending
generated.
With
that
in
mind,
the
newly
funded
tourism
efforts
would
need
to
generate
over
21,000
incremental
visitors
*
2013
SDTA
Visitor
Profile
Funding
opmons
Increase
TBID
fees
Increase
TOT
Reallocamon
of
TOT
Expand
District
to
Restaurants
Tourism
Capital
Development
Fund
Compeimve
funding
for
tourism
markemng
... : .. •.
• •• • • • . . ) ) ) ) )
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
96
Conclusion
A
comprehensive
approach
to
gathering
information,
conducting
extensive
research
and
consistent
stakeholder
involvement
has
produced
a
new
direction
for
tourism
sales
and
marketing
in
Carlsbad.
The
direction
that
has
been
developed
and
recommended
in
this
study
process
is
designed
to
maximize
the
effectiveness
of
the
current
tourism
resources
and
create
a
path
for
further
investment.
The
interest
in
future
increased
investment
will
be
validated
by
the
intent
to
create
a
sales
and
marketing
approach
that
is
razor
focused
and
highly
measurable.
Carlsbad
is
a
destination
with
many
unique
attributes
that
appeal
to
distinct
audiences.
The
results
of
the
market
segment
research
in
conjunction
with
Nielson
and
Resonate
demonstrates
the
ability
of
Carlsbad
to
appeal
to
an
upscale
audience
without
kids
as
well
as
a
family
audience
with
kids
who
are
interested
in
theme
park
type
activities.
The
findings
have
uncovered
an
opportunity
to
focus
on
the
upscale
market
segment
and
bring
new
visitors
during
the
much
needed
shoulder
periods.
The
development
of
an
aggressive
and
complimentary
group
sales
and
marketing
plan
will
be
another
cornerstone
of
the
direction.
This
plan
has
been
developed
in
collaboration
with
the
hotel
community
and
is
ready
for
implementation.
This
will
take
a
few
years
to
develop
and
can
pay
large
dividends
including
validating
the
value
of
a
new
conference/event
center
for
Carlsbad.
The
unique
Carlsbad
experience
will
provide
a
great
differentiator
for
attracting
group
business.
First
Year
Goals
–
Raising
Awareness
The
combination
of
the
proposed
goals
for
room
nights
generated
for
the
first
year
(3,600
leisure
and
1,875
group)
is
5,475
room
nights.
This
equates
to
the
“trackable”
room
nights
for
the
first
year
that
will
include
a
significant
amount
of
implementation
activity.
These
numbers
should
grow
significantly
in
future
years
as
databases
are
developed
and
the
marketing
efforts
produce
higher
conversion.
The
full
development
of
these
efforts
should
increase
annual
room
night
production
by
twenty
to
thirty
percent.
The
below
is
an
illustration
of
“trackable”
new
visitors
to
Carlsbad
over
5
years
and
the
estimated
visitor
spending
based
on
the
2013
SDTA
Visitor
Profile
Study,
which
equates
to
32,857
new
visitors
and
$39.7
million
in
new
spending.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year5
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
d
N
e
w
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
Ne
w
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
i
n
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
New
Visitor
Impact
Visitors
Spending
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
97
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
proposed
efforts
will
also
increase
the
awareness
of
Carlsbad
with
the
targeted
individual
and
group
markets
with
consistent
frequency
and
a
customized
message.
This
will
influence
visitation
beyond
the
visitors
that
can
be
tracked
directly.
The
successful
implementation
of
the
recommendations
contained
in
this
report
will
take
a
broad
base
of
support
from
the
City
of
Carlsbad,
CTBID,
Visit
Carlsbad
and
the
tourism
stakeholders.
The
development
of
the
direction
that
is
recommended
has
been
created
with
on-‐going
input.
This
will
lead
to
consensus
that
will
be
the
foundation
of
future
success.
The
recommended
governance
model
will
provide
consistent
oversight
coupled
with
active
committee
involvement.
This
will
increase
the
efficiency
of
the
implementation
process.
A
full
assessment
of
the
needs
and
roles
of
each
of
the
above
partners
should
be
conducted
in
conjunction
with
the
implementation
process.
A
first
step
would
be
a
structured
longer
session
to
review
all
of
the
recommendations
and
asses
and
define
the
roles
and
accountability
of
the
above-‐
mentioned
stakeholders.
Strategic
Advisory
Group
would
again
like
to
thank
the
individuals
who
committed
time
and
gave
important
insight
during
this
process.
The
high
level
of
engagement
provided
critical
guidance
for
this
report
and
the
final
recommendations.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
98
Recommendation
Matrix
Recommendation
Strategy
Report
Pages
Tactic
Timeframe
Communication
Regular
stakeholder
communication
Keep
stakeholders
informed
and
part
of
the
process.
Allows
for
fluid
communication
to
a
large
audience
and
provides
transparency
of
the
organization.
2
¥ Monthly
1-‐2
page
email
outreach
with
updates
and
updates
on
metrics
tracking.
¥ Annual
report
on
success
measurements
¥ Immediate
Research
Research
plan
Budget
resources
to
execute
research
initiatives.
Continue
to
refine
target
marketing
efforts.
Determine
success
of
on-‐going
efforts
54
¥ Conduct
a
Visitor
Profile
Study
every
three
years
¥ Conduct
a
benchmarking
study
biannually
¥ Conduct
a
Target
Audience
Study
biannually
¥ Conduct
a
Meeting
Planner
Survey
biannually
¥ Approve
research
plan
for
2015-‐2016
fiscal
year
¥ Conduct
first
series
of
research
plan
accordingly
Resources
Refocus
a
majority
of
the
tourism
resources
on
impacting
the
Shoulder
Season
Allocate
more
of
the
marketing
budget
for
targeted
Shoulder
Season
campaigns
4,
8,
55-‐62
¥ Confirm
direction
for
Shoulder
Season
¥ Develop
direct
marketing
campaigns
for
specific
segments
during
the
Shoulder
Season
¥ Measure
success
¥ Begin
to
plan
immediately
¥ Budget
approval
2015-‐2016
fiscal
year
Reallocate
marketing
resources
for
group
business
Utilize
the
current
budget
to
support
a
group
sales
effort
4,
63-‐70
¥ Confirm/adopt
group
sales
plan
¥ Form
the
oversight
committee
¥ Set
and
agree
upon
goals
¥ Begin
to
plan
immediately
¥ Budget
approval
2015-‐2016
fiscal
year
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
99
Measurement
Institute
a
new
approach
to
measurement
and
reporting
Keep
a
broad
base
of
stakeholders
informed
through
a
monthly
report
2,
4
¥ Create/continue
the
monthly
email
report
to
stakeholders
tracking
quantitative
success
measures
¥ Include
room
nights
converted,
packages
sold
¥ Include
qualitative
feedback
on
awareness
¥ Have
agreed
upon
goals
and
metrics
in
place
by
2015-‐2016
fiscal
year
¥ Have
plan
in
place
for
adoption
2015-‐
2016
fiscal
year
Leisure
Sales
and
Marketing
Develop
a
highly
targeted
approach
for
leisure
sales
and
marketing
Utilize
a
direct
marketing
approach
to
new
and
expanded
target
markets
for
leisure
travel
4,
40-‐54,
55-‐62
¥ Select
and
confirm
top
5
new
segments
from
Nielsen
results
to
pursue
for
the
first
1-‐3
years
¥ Create
specific
experiences
for
the
targeted
market
segments
¥ Work
closely
with
an
e-‐
marketing
partner
to
develop
a
platform
for
implementation
and
creative
support
¥ Set
and
agree
upon
goals
¥ Utilize
new
success
measures
to
track
progress
¥ Decide
on
top
segments
immediately
¥ Have
plan
approved
for
fiscal
year
2015-‐
2016
¥ Have
creative
partner
in
place
for
2015-‐2016
fiscal
year
¥ Have
implementation
tools
in
place
by
August
2015
¥ Track
success
in
the
selected
segments
for
years
1-‐3
¥ Reevaluate
market
segments
after
three
years
Refocus
target
markets
for
leisure
travel
Utilize
the
Nielsen
segmentation
results
to
target
new
markets
that
have
already
indicated
presence
in
Carlsbad
for
tourism
growth
in
Shoulder
Season
5,
40-‐54
¥ Select
and
confirm
top
5
new
segments
from
Nielsen
results
to
pursue
for
the
first
1-‐3
years
¥ Keep
family-‐friendly
attitude,
but
add
targets
direct
marketing
for
these
new
segments
¥ Track
success
in
new
markets
¥ Decide
on
top
segments
immediately
¥ Have
plan
approved
for
fiscal
year
2015-‐
2016
¥ Reevaluate
target
markets
after
three
years
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
100
Group
Sales
and
Marketing
Create
and
implement
a
new
group
sales
and
marketing
effort
Utilize
MINT
search
results
to
target
group
business.
Reallocate
resources
with
measurement
plan
5,
63-‐70
¥ Recruit
staff
member
¥ Approve
a
vertical
market
approach
and
establish
targets
¥ Obtain
and
implement
a
sales
and
marketing
software
platform
¥ Execute
a
group
destination
awareness
campaign
¥ Complete
a
feasibility
study
on
the
possibility
of
adding
a
conference
center
for
Carlsbad
¥ Begin
recruiting
staff
member
in
July
2015
with
new
hire
starting
in
August
2015
¥ Implement
new
plan
September
2015
¥ Obtain
software
platform
by
January
2016
¥ Complete
feasibility
study
on
conference
center
by
year
3
(2018-‐2019
fiscal
year)
Governance
Create
a
unified
approach
to
governance
Bring
the
CTBID
and
Visit
Carlsbad
boards
together
by
creating
a
singular
governing
board
with
active
committees
5,
82-‐86
¥ Perform
the
necessary
legal
actions
to
change
the
bylaws
of
Visit
Carlsbad
and
the
CTBID
to
meet
as
one
board
¥ Create
one
mission
on
behalf
of
the
organization
to
market
the
destination
and
drive
revenue
to
the
City
¥ Create/elect
one
board
of
7-‐10
people
¥ Create
four
committees
to
form
accountability
measures
and
delegate
responsibilities
including:
finance,
communication
and
reporting,
leisure
sales
and
marketing
and
group
sales
and
marketing
committees.
¥ Bring
to
City
Council
for
review
and
adoption
by
March
2015
¥ City
Council
time
to
select
board
members
and
City
Attorney
to
reevaluate
the
legal
entity
by
budget
approval
period
for
2015-‐2016
fiscal
year
¥ Have
new
board
in
place
by
July
2015
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
101
Funding
Implement
a
performance-‐
based
approach
to
new
funding
Utilize
TOT
funds
through
an
increase
and
reallocation.
5,
92-‐94
¥ Set
and
approve
goals
for
TOT
annual
collection
¥ Increase
the
current
TOT
to
12%
¥ Allocate
10%
of
the
current
TOT
collected
to
support
tourism
marketing
¥ Approve
funding
increases
by
mid
year
2016
Create
a
larger
district
to
include
additional
partners
and
increase
funding
Involve
restaurants
and
additional
beneficiaries
of
tourism
spending
to
include
a
tourism
tax
on
sales
5,
92-‐94
¥ Develop
applicable
partners
for
tourism
funding,
i.e.,
restaurants,
retail
and
attractions
¥ Begin
with
restaurants
as
first
industry
to
be
included
¥ Create
and
approve
percentage
tax
for
relative
partners
¥ Partners
support
by
June
2015
¥ Implementation
by
2016-‐2017
fiscal
year
Increase
the
current
fees
for
the
CTBID
Incrementally
add
a
small
amount
to
the
CTBID
fees
5,
92-‐94
¥ Increase
current
CTBID
fees
by
$0.50
¥ Implementation
of
the
$0.50
increase
should
be
in
place
by
2017-‐2018
fiscal
year
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
102
Tourism
Product
Development
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
TOURISM
INDUSTRY
STUDY-‐
CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
103
Create
unique
Carlsbad
experiences
Invest
in
Carlsbad’s
assets
to
develop
additional
tourism
experiences
5,
73-‐81
¥ Develop
and
implement
a
transportation
system
to
connect
key
points
for
tourists
¥ Utilize
the
City’s
position
to
negotiate
terms
for
rights
to
the
Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon
¥ Increase
the
parameters
of
the
contract
with
California
Watersports
for
higher
quality
standards
¥ Negotiate
terms
with
NRG
and
the
YMCA
for
tourism
access
to
the
Lagoon
¥ Invest
in
a
capital
project
to
increase
the
visitor
experience
¥ Develop
a
long-‐term
partnership
with
the
Carlsbad
Village
for
increased
marketing,
and
packaging
and
advocacy
¥ Engage
the
California
Department
of
Recreation
and
Parks
to
understand
the
City’s
rights
in
increasing
requirements
and
adding
privacy
shrubs
¥ Have
transportation
system
outlined
and
approved
in
2015-‐2016
fiscal
year
with
contractor
in
place
by
2016-‐2017
¥ Have
terms
for
rights
to
the
Lagoon
by
City/Visit
Carlsbad
by
fiscal
year
2016-‐
2017
¥ Invest
in
a
feasibility
study/RFP
process
for
a
capital
project
on
the
lagoon
by
fiscal
year
2016-‐
2017
¥ Solidify
the
Carlsbad
Village
as
a
partner
in
marketing
and
transportation
by
January
2016
¥ Finalize
beach
camping
rights
on
City’s
behalf
by
January
2016
¥ Plan
in
place
to
augment
the
visibility
issue
of
beach
camping
by
2016-‐2017
fiscal
year
¥ Implement
beach
camping
augmentation
in
fiscal
year
2016-‐
2017
with
completion
prior
to
January
2017
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
i
Addendum
SAG
would
like
to
thank
all
of
the
properties
and
individuals
in
the
City,
hospitality
and
tourism
industry
staff
who
participated
in
this
study.
Carlsbad
City
Council
Steve
Sarkozy,
City
of
Carlsbad
Kathy
Dodson,
City
of
Carlsbad
Christina
Vincent,
City
of
Carlsbad
Christie
Marcella,
City
of
Carlsbad
Kevin
Pointer,
City
of
Carlsbad
Cheryl
Gerhardt,
City
of
Carlsbad
Kim
Akers,
West
Inn
&
Suites
Denise
Chapman,
Omni
La
Costa
Sam
Ross,
Visit
Carlsbad
Tim
Stripe,
Grand
Pacific
Resorts
Renato
Alesiani,
Wave
Crest
Motels
and
Resorts
Vikram
Sood,
Hilton
Oceanfront
Randal
Chapin,
Carlsbad
Inn
Beach
Resort
Tom
McMahon,
Carlsbad
Village
Theater
Peder
Norby,
City
of
Carlsbad
Ryan
Ross,
North
County
Transit
District
Nancy
Nayudu,
Pelican
Cove
Inn
Joli
Hatch,
Carlsbad
Inn
Beach
Resort
Julie
Zahner,
Sheraton
Carlsbad
Cheryl
Landin,
LEGOLAND
California
Peter
Ronchetti,
LEGOLAND
California
Peter
Kock,
LEGOLAND
California
Valerie
Barnes,
LEGOLAND
California
Jason
Mclaughlin,
Park
Hyatt
Aviara
Renier
Milan,
Beach
Terrace
Inn
Randy
Chapin,
Grand
Pacific
Resorts
Regie
Brown,
Hilton
Joe
Anderson,
Grand
Pacific
Resorts
Frank
Idris,
LEGOLAND
Hotel
Ted
Owen,
Carlsbad
Chamber
of
Commerce
Hector
Becerra,
Carlsbad
by
the
Sea
Bill
Canepa,
Wave
Crest
Resorts
Celine
Cendras,
Henry
Schein
Ortho
Organizers
Michael
Collins,
Zimmer
Dental
Stephen
Morisseau,
GIA
Jim
Caraccio,
Logic
PD
Tim
Sinnott,
Legend
3D
Josh
Cantor,
California
Watersports
Gary
Glaser,
The
Crossings
Terri
Howard
Mannes,
Carlsbad
Premium
Outlets
Steve
Gibson,
Urban
Place
Consulting
Ashley
Westman,
Urban
Place
Consulting
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
ii
Nielsen
Lifestyle
Segmentation
Analysis:
Results
by
Season
Summer
Season
Top
15
PRIZM
Segments
• Kids
and
Cul-‐de-‐Sacs
–
upper
middle
class
families
with
children
living
in
the
suburbs.
These
families
have
a
household
median
income
of
$71,830
and
the
parents’
range
in
age
from
25-‐44.
The
parents
are
college
educated
and
hold
professional
positions.
These
families
are
in
the
“melting
pot”
category
and
are
White,
Black,
Asian,
Hispanic
and
Mixed.
These
families
order
on
target.com,
watch
the
X
Games
on
TV
and
drive
minivans
like
the
Honda
Odyssey.
• Movers
&
Shakers
–
wealthy,
older
households
without
kids
living
in
the
suburbs.
These
households
are
45-‐64
with
a
median
income
of
$101,517.
This
segment
is
college
educated
carrying
graduate
degrees
and
holding
management
positions.
They
are
mostly
White
and
Asian.
These
households
play
tennis,
shop
at
Nordstrom
and
drive
higher
end
SUVs
i.e.,
Land
Rover.
• Upper
Crust–
significantly
wealthy,
older
households
without
kids
living
in
the
suburbs.
This
segment
is
55+
with
a
median
household
income
of
$110,117
and
are
classified
by
Nielsen
as
millionaires.
These
households
are
college
educated
with
graduate
degrees
in
upper
management
positions.
They
are
mainly
White.
This
segment
shops
at
high
end
store
like
Saks
Fifth
Avenue,
have
vacationed
in
Europe,
watch
and
play
golf
and
drive
luxury
vehicles
i.e.,
Lexus
LS.
• The
Cosmopolitans
–
wealthy,
mid
to
older
age
range,
mostly
without
kids
living
in
urban
areas.
This
segment
is
55+
with
a
household
income
of
$58,313
working
in
white-‐collar
settings.
This
segment
is
classified
as
a
“Melting
Pot”
and
includes
White,
Asian,
Black,
Hispanic
and
Mixed.
These
households
shop
at
Macy’s,
have
vacationed
outside
the
US,
watch
Masterpiece
Theatre
and
drive
upper
midclass
vehicles
i.e.,
Lincoln
Town
Car
-‐
Flex
Fuel.
• Money
&
Brains
–
wealthy,
older
family
mix
within
the
household,
living
in
urban
areas.
The
older
family
mix
means
the
children
are
mostly
older
teenage
or
college
age
dependents.
The
parents
are
45-‐64
with
a
median
household
income
of
$88,837
and
are
college
educated
in
management
positions.
These
households
are
classified
as
a
“Melting
Pot”
and
include
White,
Asian,
Black,
Hispanic
and
Mixed.
This
segment
shops
at
stores
like
Banana
Republic,
travel
for
business
occasionally,
watch
tennis
and
drive
luxury
SUVs
i.e.,
Mercedes
Benz
E
Class.
• Home
Sweet
Home
–
Widely
scattered
across
the
nation's
suburbs,
the
residents
of
Home
Sweet
Home
tend
to
be
upper-‐middle-‐class
married
couples
living
in
mid-‐sized
homes
without
children.
The
adults
in
the
segment,
mostly
under
55,
have
gone
to
college
and
hold
professional
and
white-‐collar
jobs.
With
their
upper-‐middle-‐class
incomes
and
small
families,
these
folks
have
fashioned
comfortable
lifestyles,
filling
their
homes
with
exercise
equipment,
TV
sets,
and
pets.
The
Home
Sweet
Home
Segment
has
a
median
household
income
of
$
68,555
and
is
in
the
Melting
Pot
category
made
up
of
5
White,
Black,
Asian
and
Mixed
ethnicities.
This
segment
shops
from
buy.com,
download
music
from
iTunes,
watch
shows
like
The
Amazing
Race,
read
Wired
Magazine
and
drive
middle
class
vehicles
like
the
Mazda
CX-‐7.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
iii
• Middleburg
Managers
-‐
Middleburg
Managers
arose
when
empty
nesters
settled
in
satellite
communities,
which
offered
a
lower
cost
of
living
and
more
relaxed
pace.
Today,
segment
residents
tend
to
be
middle
class
with
solid
white-‐collar
jobs
or
comfortable
retirements.
In
their
older
homes,
they
enjoy
reading,
playing
musical
instruments,
indoor
gardening,
and
refinishing
furniture.
This
segment
is
upper
middle
class
with
a
median
household
income
of
$53,379.
Middleburg
Managers
are
mostly
home
owners
without
children.
The
main
ethnicity
in
this
segment
is
White
and
includes
Black
and
Asian.
Middleburg
Managers
shop
at
Pottery
Barn,
vacation
on
cruise
lines,
read
Travel
+
Leisure,
watch
Washington
Week
and
drive
cars
like
the
Hyundai
Elantra
Touring.
• Traditional
Times
–
This
segment
is
mostly
middle-‐aged
without
children
in
the
household.
Traditional
times
are
in
the
upper
middleclass
income
level
with
a
median
household
income
of
$57,949.
Traditional
Times
is
the
kind
of
lifestyle
where
small-‐
town
couples
nearing
retirement
are
beginning
to
enjoy
their
first
empty-‐nest
years.
Typically
in
their
fifties
and
older,
these
upper-‐middle-‐class
Americans
pursue
a
kind
of
granola-‐and-‐grits
lifestyle.
On
their
coffee
tables
are
magazines
with
titles
like
Country
Living
and
Country
Home.
But
they're
big
travelers,
especially
in
recreational
vehicles
and
campers.
This
segment
shops
at
Sam’s
Club,
contribute
to
PBS,
Read
Southern
Living,
watch
Antiques
Roadshow
and
drive
affordable
cars
i.e.,
Toyota
Avalon.
• New
Empty
Nests
-‐
With
their
grown-‐up
children
recently
out
of
the
house,
New
Empty
Nests
is
composed
of
upper-‐middle
income
older
Americans
who
pursue
active-‐-‐and
activist-‐-‐lifestyles.
Most
residents
are
over
65
years
old,
but
they
show
no
interest
in
a
rest-‐home
retirement.
This
is
the
top-‐ranked
segment
for
all-‐inclusive
travel
packages;
the
favorite
destination
is
Europe.
New
Empty
Nests
are
a
mature
segment,
which
is
mostly
White
and
retired
with
a
median
household
income
of
$71,212.
This
segment
shops
at
T.J.
Maxx,
vacations
for
2+
weeks
a
year,
reads
the
Smithsonian
magazine,
watches
golf,
and
drives
luxury
vehicles
i.e.,
Cadillac
sadan.
• Bohemian
Mix
-‐
A
collection
of
mobile
urbanites,
Bohemian
Mix
represents
the
nation's
most
liberal
lifestyles.
Its
residents
are
an
ethnically
diverse,
progressive
mix
of
young
singles,
couples,
and
families
ranging
from
students
to
professionals.
In
their
funky
row
houses
and
apartments,
Bohemian
Mixers
are
the
early
adopters
who
are
quick
to
check
out
the
latest
movie,
nightclub,
laptop,
and
microbrew.
This
upper
middle
class
segment
has
a
median
household
income
of
$56,676
and
mostly
rent
their
homes
or
apartments.
College
graduates
in
professional
positions,
Bohemian
Mix
is
in
the
Melting
Pot
category
and
have
a
race
and
ethnicity
mix
of
6
White,
Black,
Asian,
Hispanic
and
mixed.
This
segment
shops
at
the
Gap,
reads
GQ,
watches
foreign
films
and
drive
vehicles
like
the
Audi
S4.
• Gray
Power
–
Gray
Power
is
a
midscale
mature
segment
in
a
household
without
children.
The
steady
rise
of
older,
healthier
Americans
over
the
past
decade
has
produced
one
important
by-‐product:
middle-‐class,
mostly
home-‐owning
suburbanites
who
are
aging
in
place
rather
than
moving
to
retirement
communities.
Gray
Power
reflects
this
trend,
a
segment
of
older,
midscale
singles
and
couples
who
live
in
quiet
comfort.
This
segment
is
mostly
White
with
a
median
household
income
of
$52,936.
Gray
Power
shops
at
Lord
&
Taylor,
read
Barron’s,
own
a
stationary
bike,
watch
Frontline
and
drive
upscale
vehicles
like
the
Mercedes-‐Benz
Sprinter.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
iv
• New
Homesteaders
-‐
Young,
upper-‐middle-‐class
families
seeking
to
escape
suburban
sprawl
find
refuge
in
New
Homesteaders,
a
collection
of
small
rustic
townships
filled
with
new
ranches
and
Cape
Cods.
With
decent-‐paying
jobs
in
white
and
blue-‐collar
industries,
these
dual-‐income
couples
have
fashioned
comfortable,
child-‐centered
lifestyles;
their
driveways
are
filled
with
campers
and
powerboats,
their
family
rooms
with
PlayStations.
This
segment
has
a
median
household
income
of
$58,997
and
is
a
white-‐collar
employee.
New
Homesteaders
are
mostly
white,
black
or
mixed.
They
are
child
focused
and
drive
affordable
family
friendly
vehicles
like
this
Kia
Sedona.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
v
Shoulder
Season
Top
15
Segments
¥ Upper
Crust
–
significantly
wealthy,
older
households
without
kids
living
in
the
suburbs.
This
segment
is
55+
with
a
median
household
income
of
$110,117
and
are
classified
by
Nielsen
as
millionaires.
These
households
are
college
educated
with
graduate
degrees
in
upper
management
positions.
They
are
mainly
White.
This
segment
shops
at
high-‐end
stores
like
Saks
Fifth
Avenue,
have
vacationed
in
Europe,
watch
and
play
golf
and
drive
luxury
vehicles
i.e.,
Lexus
LS.
¥ Money
&
Brains
–
wealthy,
older
family
mix
within
the
household,
living
in
urban
areas.
The
older
family
mix
means
the
children
are
mostly
older
teenage
or
college
age
dependents.
The
parents
are
45-‐64
with
a
median
household
income
of
$88,837
and
are
college
educated
in
management
positions.
These
households
are
classified
as
a
“Melting
Pot”
and
include
White,
Asian,
Black,
Hispanic
and
Mixed.
This
segment
shops
at
stores
like
Banana
Republic,
travel
for
business
occasionally,
watch
tennis
and
drive
luxury
SUVs
i.e.,
Mercedes
Benz
E
Class.
¥ The
Cosmopolitans
–
wealthy,
mid
to
older
age
range,
mostly
without
kids
living
in
urban
areas.
This
segment
is
55+
with
a
household
income
of
$58,313
working
in
white-‐collar
settings.
This
segment
is
classified
as
a
“Melting
Pot”
and
includes
White,
Asian,
Black,
Hispanic
and
Mixed.
These
households
shop
at
Macy’s,
have
vacationed
outside
the
US,
watch
Masterpiece
Theatre
and
drive
upper
midclass
vehicles
i.e.,
Lincoln
Town
Car
-‐
Flex
Fuel.
¥ Middleburg
Managers
-‐
Middleburg
Managers
arose
when
empty
nesters
settled
in
satellite
communities,
which
offered
a
lower
cost
of
living
and
more
relaxed
pace.
Today,
segment
residents
tend
to
be
middle
class
with
solid
white-‐collar
jobs
or
comfortable
retirements.
In
their
older
homes,
they
enjoy
reading,
playing
musical
instruments,
indoor
gardening,
and
refinishing
furniture.
This
segment
is
upper
middle
class
with
a
median
household
income
of
$53,379.
Middleburg
Managers
are
mostly
home
owners
without
children.
The
main
ethnicity
in
this
segment
is
White
and
includes
Black
and
Asian.
Middleburg
Managers
shop
at
Pottery
Barn,
vacation
on
cruise
lines,
read
Travel
+
Leisure,
watch
Washington
Week
and
drive
cars
like
the
Hyundai
Elantra
Touring.
¥ Traditional
Times
–
This
segment
is
mostly
middle-‐aged
without
children
in
the
household.
Traditional
times
are
in
the
upper
middleclass
income
level
with
a
median
household
income
of
$57,949.
Traditional
Times
is
the
kind
of
lifestyle
where
small-‐
town
couples
nearing
retirement
are
beginning
to
enjoy
their
first
empty-‐nest
years.
Typically
in
their
fifties
and
older,
these
upper-‐middle-‐class
Americans
pursue
a
kind
of
granola-‐and-‐grits
lifestyle.
On
their
coffee
tables
are
magazines
with
titles
like
Country
Living
and
Country
Home.
But
they're
big
travelers,
especially
in
recreational
vehicles
and
campers.
This
segment
shops
at
Sam’s
Club,
contribute
to
PBS,
Read
Southern
Living,
watch
Antiques
Roadshow
and
drive
affordable
cars
i.e.,
Toyota
Avalon.
¥ Bohemian
Mix
-‐
A
collection
of
mobile
urbanites,
Bohemian
Mix
represents
the
nation's
most
liberal
lifestyles.
Its
residents
are
an
ethnically
diverse,
progressive
mix
of
young
singles,
couples,
and
families
ranging
from
students
to
professionals.
In
their
funky
row
houses
and
apartments,
Bohemian
Mixers
are
the
early
adopters
who
are
quick
to
check
out
the
latest
movie,
nightclub,
laptop,
and
microbrew.
This
upper
middle
class
segment
has
a
median
household
income
of
$56,676
and
mostly
rent
their
homes
or
apartments.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
vi
College
graduates
in
professional
positions,
Bohemian
Mix
is
in
the
Melting
Pot
category
and
have
a
race
and
ethnicity
mix
of
6
White,
Black,
Asian,
Hispanic
and
mixed.
This
segment
shops
at
the
Gap,
reads
GQ,
watches
foreign
films
and
drive
vehicles
like
the
Audi
S4.
¥ Home
Sweet
Home
–
Widely
scattered
across
the
nation's
suburbs,
the
residents
of
Home
Sweet
Home
tend
to
be
upper-‐middle-‐class
married
couples
living
in
mid-‐sized
homes
without
children.
The
adults
in
the
segment,
mostly
under
55,
have
gone
to
college
and
hold
professional
and
white-‐collar
jobs.
With
their
upper-‐middle-‐class
incomes
and
small
families,
these
folks
have
fashioned
comfortable
lifestyles,
filling
their
homes
with
exercise
equipment,
TV
sets,
and
pets.
The
Home
Sweet
Home
Segment
has
a
median
household
income
of
$
68,555
and
is
in
the
Melting
Pot
category
made
up
of
5
White,
Black,
Asian
and
Mixed
ethnicities.
This
segment
shops
from
buy.com,
download
music
from
iTunes,
watch
shows
like
The
Amazing
Race,
read
Wired
Magazine
and
drive
middle
class
vehicles
like
the
Mazda
CX-‐7.
¥ Gray
Power
–
Gray
Power
is
a
midscale
mature
segment
in
a
household
without
children.
The
steady
rise
of
older,
healthier
Americans
over
the
past
decade
has
produced
one
important
by-‐product:
middle-‐class,
mostly
home-‐owning
suburbanites
who
are
aging
in
place
rather
than
moving
to
retirement
communities.
Gray
Power
reflects
this
trend,
a
segment
of
older,
midscale
singles
and
couples
who
live
in
quiet
comfort.
This
segment
is
mostly
White
with
a
median
household
income
of
$52,936.
Gray
Power
shops
at
Lord
&
Taylor,
read
Barron’s,
own
a
stationary
bike,
watch
Frontline
and
drive
upscale
vehicles
like
the
Mercedes-‐Benz
Sprinter.
¥ Green
Belt
Sports
-‐
A
segment
of
upscale
exurban
couples,
Greenbelt
Sports
is
known
for
its
active
lifestyle.
Most
of
these
older
residents
are
married,
college-‐educated,
and
own
new
homes.
Few
segments
have
higher
rates
for
pursuing
outdoor
activities
such
as
skiing,
canoeing,
backpacking,
boating,
and
mountain
biking
than
this
one.
The
Green
Belt
Sports
segment
is
an
older
household
between
45-‐64
without
children
and
a
median
household
income
of
$59,646.
This
segment
has
white-‐collar
jobs
and
is
has
a
racial
and
ethnic
mix
of
White
and
Asian.
Green
Belt
Sports
orders
from
ebay.com,
vacations
in
tropical
destinations,
read
More
magazine
and
watch
hockey.
¥ Country
Casuals
-‐
There's
a
laid-‐back
atmosphere
in
Country
Casuals,
a
collection
of
older,
upscale
households
that
have
started
to
empty-‐nest.
Most
households
boast
two
earners
who
have
well-‐paying
management
jobs
or
own
small
businesses.
Today,
these
Baby-‐Boom
couples
have
the
disposable
income
to
enjoy
traveling,
owning
timeshares,
and
going
out
to
eat.
Country
Casuals
are
mostly
White
and
older
between
45-‐64
with
a
median
household
income
of
$74,208
and
in
a
household
without
kids.
This
segment
shops
at
Eddie
Bauer,
buy
collectibles,
read
Backpacker
magazine,
watch
the
Big
Bang
Theory
and
drive
sports
cars
i.e.
Corvette.
¥ Movers
&
Shakers
–
wealthy,
older
households
without
kids
living
in
the
suburbs.
These
households
are
45-‐64
with
a
median
income
of
$101,517.
This
segment
is
college
educated
carrying
graduate
degrees
and
holding
management
positions.
They
are
mostly
White
and
Asian.
These
households
play
tennis,
shop
at
Nordstrom
and
drive
higher
end
SUVs
i.e.,
Land
Rover.
¥ Young
Influentials
–
Once
known
as
the
home
of
the
nation's
yuppies,
Young
Influentials
reflects
the
fading
glow
of
acquisitive
yuppiedom.
Today,
the
segment
is
a
common
address
for
middle-‐class
singles
and
couples
who
are
more
preoccupied
with
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
vii
balancing
work
and
leisure
pursuits
and
who
live
in
apartment
complexes
surrounded
by
ball
fields,
health
clubs,
and
casual-‐dining
restaurants.
This
segment
is
classified
as
middle
aged
and
is
under
55
with
a
median
household
income
of
$49,942.
The
racial
and
ethnic
mix
is
White,
Black,
Asian
and
Hispanic.
Young
Influentials
shop
at
Best
Buy,
play
racquetball,
read
Details
magazine,
watch
American
Dad
and
drive
affordable
cars
i.e.
Mazda
3.
¥ Blue
Blood
Estates
-‐
Blue
Blood
Estates
is
a
family
portrait
of
suburban
wealth,
a
place
of
million-‐dollar
homes
and
manicured
lawns,
high-‐end
cars
and
exclusive
private
clubs.
The
nation's
second-‐wealthiest
lifestyle
is
characterized
by
married
couples
with
children,
graduate
degrees,
a
significant
percentage
of
Asian
Americans,
and
six-‐figure
incomes
earned
by
business
executives,
managers,
and
professionals.
Blue
Blood
Estates
are
45-‐64
with
children
and
a
median
household
income
of
$119,595.
This
segment
shops
at
Crate
&
Barrel,
goes
skiing,
watch
HBO
and
drive
luxury
vehicles
i.e.
Acura
RL.
¥ New
Empty
Nests
-‐
With
their
grown-‐up
children
recently
out
of
the
house,
New
Empty
Nests
is
composed
of
upper-‐middle
income
older
Americans
who
pursue
active-‐-‐and
activist-‐-‐lifestyles.
Most
residents
are
over
65
years
old,
but
they
show
no
interest
in
a
rest-‐home
retirement.
This
is
the
top-‐ranked
segment
for
all-‐inclusive
travel
packages;
the
favorite
destination
is
Europe.
New
Empty
Nests
are
a
mature
segment,
which
is
mostly
White
and
retired
with
a
median
household
income
of
$71,212.
This
segment
shops
at
T.J.
Maxx,
vacations
for
2+
weeks
a
year,
reads
the
Smithsonian
magazine,
watches
golf,
and
drives
luxury
vehicles
i.e.,
Cadillac
sedan.
¥ Up-‐and-‐Comers
-‐
Up-‐and-‐Comers
is
a
stopover
for
younger,
upper-‐midscale
singles
before
they
marry,
have
families,
and
establish
more
deskbound
lifestyles.
Found
in
second-‐tier
cities,
these
mobile
adults,
mostly
age
25
to
44,
include
a
disproportionate
number
of
recent
college
graduates
who
are
into
athletic
activities,
the
latest
technology,
and
nightlife
entertainment.
This
segment
has
a
racial
and
ethnic
mix
of
White
and
Asian
with
a
median
household
income
of
$52,930.
Up-‐and-‐Comers
typically
order
from
priceline.com,
travel
to
South
America,
read
Cigar
Aficionado,
watch
South
Park,
and
drive
cars
like
the
Nissan
Altima
Hybrid.
StrategicAdvisoryGroup
1
Jennifer Jesser
From:Diane Nygaard <dnygaard3@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 22, 2023 9:58 AM
To:Growth Management Committee
Cc:Eric Lardy
Subject:Carlsbad Tomorrow - Comments on Open Space Performance Standard
Attachments:2008 Open Space Comm Report p 1.pdf; 2008 Open Space Comm Report p 2.pdf; 2008 Open Space
Comm Report p 3.pdf
Honorable Chair and Committee Members
Hundreds of residents of this community have expressed their support for increased open space over many years. In
2001 the voters approved Proposition C‐ and authorized the city spending general fund monies to acquire more open
space. In 2008 the Open Space and Trails Citizens Committee listened to citizen input and recommended 16 properties
for open space acquisition. In 2015 parks and open space generated more comments on the update of the General
Plan than all other issues combined. In 2016 the voters passed a referendum to stop the development of a mall on the
priceless open space next to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. And this committee has already heard from many. Open space
was a high priority in 1986 when the performance standards were developed, and it remains a high priority today.
We ask you to consider the following as you make your recommendations on open space :
‐ Att 2 shows that 24 of the 25 LFMZ's already have over 15% open space. Is that correct?
Open space ‐yes. But open space that complies with the restrictions of the GMP for 15 % "unconstrained" open space‐
no. The standard specifically excluded things like the open water of the lagoons and steep slopes over 25% among
others. Att 2 is not showing compliance with the adopted standard from 1986‐ many zones fail to meet that standard.
‐ The detailed explanation of the history of LFMZ 9 Ponto concludes it meets the performance standard. Does it?
The "history" leaves out the single critical fact. The "compliance" is based on an exemption that was granted based on a
project that never was approved. The open space that was planned to be set aside for that project never was set
aside. This zone is the most egregious example of how the exemption process was misused.
‐ Should 11 of the 25 LFMZs that were exempted in 1986 still be exempted today?
Circumstances have changed, and the unintended consequences of that action are now known. It is clear that all parts
of the city do not have equitable access to open space, This is not something that can be addressed overnight. But it
can be done in a thoughtful way that moves towards equity and respects the voices of the residents in support of
open space. .
‐ What happened with the report by the Open Space and Trails Citizens Committee recommending 16 properties for
acquisition?
The report sits on a shelf, waiting for a landowner to knock on the city's door. We know what work it takes to actually
acquire open space‐ we acquired 2 of the parcels on that list. One other was acquired by BLF, some have been
developed. But most importantly‐ several critical parcels remain and have the potential to be permanently protected as
open space. This includes several that are critical to protect the regional wildlife movement corridor. See three page
summary report from the Committee att.
2
‐ The staff report implies the city meets the state Executive Order to preserve 30% of lands and waters by 2030. Is that
correct?
The Executive Order is not intended as just a percentage of acres. It is to be the acres that achieve critical goals to
protect biodiversity, respond to climate change, and address inequities in access to open space. There has been no such
assessment of the open space in Carlsbad.
‐ Carlsbad seems to have more open space than many other cities in this area and exceeds many guidelines for open
space‐ don't we have enough?
When the regional conservation plans were developed Carlsbad had more sensitive lands and wetlands remaining than
the other cities in north county‐ so more was required to be protected. Carlsbad takes pride in its community‐
and open space is a core feature of what makes Carlsbad special.
‐ Is it too late to save open space?
No‐ it is not too late. The time is now.
Recommendation
Keep the existing performance standard for the LFMZ's that were not exempted. For the LFMZ's that were exempted (
Zones 1‐10 and 16) establish a performance "goal" of 15% of unconstrained open space. Reconfirm the goal for 40%
open space citywide.
For the Quality of Life memo recommend :
That the city be "proactive" in acquiring the open space identified by the Open Space Committee in 2008 and such new
opportunities that could address the shortfall in open space in the eleven zones that were exempted. ‐ Allow flexibility
in how that could be achieved considering things like adjacent zones sharing open space or adjusting boundaries of
LFMZ's.
This is particularly important to consider along the coast where Sea Level Rise will inundate key areas of the coast and
there will be loss of some of the existing beach.
Diane Nygaard
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
--------·-) )) .,__.... .. ---#1
i
~v~
PROPOSITION COPEN IPACE AND TAAU.,S COMMlffEE PROPERTY ANALYSIS
(AS OF JANtJARV 28, 2001 • nttti lnfor1ttt1tlo11 II# ltlfllc1)
~~~~~1"'t';U~~if.f (" il:.il'' 'i~l'it,1..,_,J:~~~~,Wf.ol'i~~~.;IP!f4~~~1~,~~-~-1 I 11 II ¥\.t1.-.•~-..... -,.-~•;·l~"1~ I'll •• ~
Addtt TrnH3 ro CH~ I ~and 0111 Cmd'llet•
fti)'ttflllVit
MntpUon
C.Nlllll Property l\lllijlt AON~-· I Adda o,-..n $pato
(11pJrt~lm1t•) to Cltr 1$ytt.im
btn,fltt ff MP Wllllng Self41r
!ii*1t11a ()I .
tl@mlt\lttfll ovl!Jttff
Rlpld«tl r ~~~~~~~~~~~~•~i•li;:.~~...,,., '" ~•Hel'lllt 'otrt~ .. 'l!.lll'M>f!J' J:;WiPJ)ll';:4~t-,t~-~~f .. '11 )!CAft -~*Mrd~l :o, ... ~f(i!.1:M• ~~'fllM~'~lf'l'/6,1;~1,1H!'t~•""-i,,o,.. f!"l,,'.i,j f!~or.-
100 tl¢1'41ij V1~ Y@II VIia Ye• .. po11km ohlto ls
d,sl&Mted for
1-.iald«int!al l11nd Uffe!I
1>ut1111tlnl KU~lf4l'
to Aaonuy
11pprov11I,
No l Ql«llfl")I Cr:Mk
~~\~)11,~."""r.;,..1;~..;,,.lJiit.,I ., .. J¢.1s·~111~ ~;;·"• .. ~_,.,,,,.,. ·¥ ... -1·1· ~n .,.,..1.,.-.,..~, ;(ljt If~~-~•• ~...,,~.,.,..Hf • t ,.,, m,,"" • ...,,..,i.f·1,t-f -I ✓ $hel"l1tttll Pmpcrl)'
(l!'llll 1m111,nts) 134 aore11. ttall
Mffl$0 u11know11.
~~~-.,.-~-~.lirl:il·~•;1, lii!,··w:0N1 1.·f._ ~~• ~ ~~
2 {~ftlUVtll'II Vlll11;1;1 14 60 ueres
No .. property Is
iilrelid)' oqr1a,rvt1d,
...
Potentially, lfihl.l
3,2 1ott CP site 18
dcillljnattd OS,
No .. pr1>pt11)1 l~ Ves
11lteady rJoi,su/'Vod,
..._.._~lf~,,, .... ,J J *' -roientlnlly, If 3 .2
I
No -City trull
itONt CF •It• ,. 11l"'11dy exlats on
eonsorved 11nd proport)I
reRlantcid,
No .. thtlls wo11ld j\ot
cn11f1lc:,t whh land UPI
dOMlj1U1tlons,
No w property la
all'Qad)'
aonnorvcd,
Yes
t ,I 'ii• .. Iii ~ -~ ,iWd ,o -' ~I f,i. •-~~1...,_.~>'1111'1"1.l~j~-"<'hi!
Vi's -• l,2 aero
portion Qf alfe Is
dHlgnl\tCld Com1ntlt1lt~
11 aollltl111
No Yoa
~ .. "~-• w·•-~,.,.·~~>-.-i"'"' bFI>•-I •~ l.i,, ,,:,..~""V\ ·I,. ... , n ,lll11.-~.1"' I * :;to( ·I ~t &· ,,.,..., 1-"'"· .,I
it $'411t1J Cr.Hk ht,p.eftlff (I I)
U),Sf qc~i l'tl ... fl,t#l't Cit, tf(lll
lrawrUJ tl,1
properllfllll,
Yu -mq, f1/ tht
prop,rl(et .(Iii
fif#NJaH,ztlilfor fulur,
l'fsl</4,atlid
Am,1111111 llib)ld f Vfir/#4 $~MS
ioAr,noy
nppt'fvlll.
ru .. habitat ,nd
/1Hdplf4ln fP(Ji'ti
ate t'JHl~kll of ~,,,_, ()pin
l/14",
fr# "' td'1/lt1nal
ltilblifl pr,IIMl#.IUllt
tindw'111i#l1
b4d/ttlnf la puisllJI,,
...,_~--i·• .. ", . .. ,-···· i•"--....,-.------~-d1fvtlopM1111t, .. _.....,.,,~.,,-~-.-~,~-_____,,._,_,_.....,.. if -i 11 1111 ,., · ;,,1...,1'1'>.n , -;-· lw a~ .~ 1. _ 1 _ .. _ _ · t it litli!.! q;._'f~t ,. ,i'ct ·1 1:1o -,~~
4 $, A,110 H~ffllt1nd11
,rqp,nha (6)
J./ll1cm f,1 .. 111, r1/fla;
p,.,p,,;l" Ii
dfitltlfalld/ur ,,,,,,,
di/f\lelt.,pm.1Rt,
YI# ... "'~""''"'"'' CO#ld Jm)~ld,
tfllllfltntlt>ri m«d
1tldJtlan"' buflu,
t11A1 ..,fututt cu,"'""
INl'lrtll thl
prop,,11,-.
Y111 -01te 'II th; p;,,p,,;1,q 1$
tle&iglfat.d/tH' fi!tur,
tJORf#W/'4:/111
dlllltlopm,ht,
P"t111t~ 1ufd11ct
tot11111c,i
,:pproval.
U1'1,,,ow11
~-#'~IP.-'!:~~~-~~~~~,-~ ~-.....,+-.,. P/IJ.;.....~"-·""''~""' I Aitll>\1¥1.:..t•·· • ,av+ f-i..w.;,wi,-..,..,_.,..* ;,· {.,.__.,_,.-.!!~"
d Co. Airport PropfJ!rty
(OS -,asom11nt)
204 ncres No -pro~rty Is
already conserved
No ... pro.po· tty ls
within County
M~CP,
Vos .. portion of
pro.pony la doslgnpt~
for City troll.
No -. Pt'QJ>l?ff>' I$
111nlady Q9n~rved
No NQ
c'')
OS
Cl)ntmhto,
'11rSttdf R1t1ddq
~l~t,11,Mkf•l'!~(Nfi ,
_,....,_......___,.,,.. .
r
___ ........__._ ..
.,
~._...,,,.._
IO _ ..
'II
--
~\]\YI ' ✓
i--
u "_;V--I r
,L'
"\ ~~~\ '\,
'\ "}\"~. ·~ -~
i,ROPOSITJON COPEN SPACE AND • lA1LS COMMITfltE PRO)»tRT\' ANALYSIS
(AS OF JANUARY 28, 2008 -new ln/ormatJon In itallcY) --··~···••jl.lll~~----jPJ 11 . t .Wll ••a .. ,.,..1,1 ·,
Propertf N'•m• .\11n11p Add11 Opt• 81tatit u, ... na, RMP Md• ·rrallft to Cit)' L111ad l!H C:tnftt1.i•r M1t1ptlo11
(,lppm111m,,11) fll Clltf IJ)11NIIIJ lf1t,m Ot'vdll .
flH.,lt,lilll"'t•f ........ ~ .. ~ -,-~i,. ~~•,fifr, llw,; 1 · Wil• IA1" O!' •• :f~"" ...,., ... Ml,,,lll"•14ll'Mt!
I("'" ~f!lptl'i)/ 73 lC1'08 YtN y .. -Ql'll)' • p~rtl<ll\ Pi>ttntlally ... CIW tr111l Yes .. i,ortlon of alto I• PQIOlttliil lll~DCt
ohht alli wo1,1ld bt ay1tcm op~ld bo do-lsn•ted far to Agonoy
QQnHMdif Pmondod 10 lncludo ~aldo1tti11I land 11s118, 1ppl'O\III,
'' dovtlopiJd, tho prupcri)'. .........._.,...... ............ _.._.....,. ..... ~......,._"""'"" _,~ -!'!•M "'"··4,_ 11!1111 -_ -., rt •· *' ··;.1i -Mand11n11 Prop,11)' 186 i!CJ'OS v .. Yti .. uni~ a .p9ttlon V 1111i -ponlon ot •ltc, I• Potqntll\1 ,ubJ~t
of the sl«i woul4 be de1l11ni1ted for U>Aaenoy
COIIHll'Ved if "'1tildo11tl1I lllnd u•••• 11ppro\lal.
d~weloped, -... -..... ~ .. ,, 441 dj
CUSD HIWJ School 581tort~, Yei No ... propos»I onl)' Potondal aubjoct
Site 1,1111,!ij~d p<1rtlon lnelude, ~llUS.W IQb®I tQA~ency stu unknown. prop,rty t\pprov111. ---~~""""""
l,ubllntir Pri,pert)i 17 ~r•il, trail No No Ye•,. futuro qlty tr11ll : No ... tr4U would noj No Oran e41sc,1tto11t) ~1111ae 1011,wd on property,· oonf!l;t wltH_ l•nd "'° u11iu1oWn, · de@lgnatlon11.
R4nchf.) C11rlsbad l l 11ortis Yes Yfl1-pro.,ei't)' would 'No YH-pPnlon ofs!t• is PQt1111tl11l tubjcet
bt.1 lnol11dod In HMP de1!sn•ted for lo Agency
Pre8mo, nialdo11tial ht11d u11es. ,,,pproval.
Mlt11m0hl Property 18 llCre~ Yf3t1 Yes ,.. propetty would Vot-ti.iture City trail Vea -portJori of alte Is Potcntllll subject
bll lnclu4td In HMP h:icut•d oh property, dceignat,d for IQ Aacncy
P,oservo, rosldenllal lalld um, ~pptoval. -.... _..._ ... _
Murph>' Property 17 8Cl'08 Yes Ye~ -property W<>Uld Yo• .. Muro City trail Yoe~ pcnlon of site In Pot1:11,tlal subjeot
bll Included In HMP locotcd on property. d1111lgn11ted for t0Ag<1ncy
rreeetve. re~ldcnll•I land u~c,. approval. ----·-·-··-.......,___,_, __ -
)
~
Wlfl!~I Siller St•tu•
Un~ot•l'inln•~
.
No
-~~i,
No
No
--No
--Ye&
No
I
PROPOSlflON COPEN SPACE ANP TltAU .. S CC)MMITrEE PROPERTY ANAL\:'8114
(AS OF JAN1JARV 28, 2008 -n,w lnformati1Jlf In Ito/I'!#)
•--~;-r~;~;~:.~ Aor~~-• . . z;;;;;~:•"1-;;:ru~H;;
(')l)IJlmlthli.1 . <•Jipmxb1t11tt) ffl Cit)' $)'11l4iKRI
or ••~II h1mld1q
l~~iti
A411•>r ff:
-~~~l(!t~~µ~~W~'¥''>......it~
alt,tot'JfW ¥,11nd t!1t Conffiot1 ltUtl&alloff
'Rtlm C~dlt
,-;-1·;;~;,t~a v;;:i--r·7;;;;-1-;, -,,w,il/N F ~ii;, I ntz ,., i.;~ ;1~/liA'>.~~
Yl)A •· 0onHtv1nhm
!'on~ would allow now ttko
rxirmlt for v•rniil puol
Mpt,,cloa. ~--;--t:;:·;;~:;, , 1~~ .. ··,; ac~.. ·t -"·"-;-·7-;;s -oonw•;u;lon.
would 1nl\l11taln tnke
P'-'rfli It f9r B1'0dlaen,
~ ... ,,._..,JI•·~:
Id I s,,,, Prop,rthlt m I 31,U acr,, I ,Ni>--Jtt1tptrdtta f Ill .. C(!!f#9rllatlon
ft~il)l dlllftfttlld woulf( provld11
(JptoS~I utaH«t1'1flfit1t ft,r
11/f~ltfltdl -·
~
No
-...:.~
No
~-~ .....
fn .. fM,
"'"'''" ll!lh"l/1
rentl4(/M
'"" ltffll 1tltemmA
No .. prQptrty I~
11lro11dy;conJml'Vild,
11/tl""'"'!il· ....
Na p proport~ {$
ah111.dy .ce11~tved',
lilt~
No ... propm,y tr
<1ltud;t df slf nf!ittl
{,)plit1 ltxrrt in
Oin1tMI I f Ii.Ii
' No
. ' ~ --~·11,M
Ntt
Pot,ntlq/ ,ulJ},ct
toA,1111~
<IPPfrOIIOI,
\
\f1
Wllif P.ll Seller
StAfqa
~•"
Yes
Vo~
/t{(J
\
PROPOSl'tlON COPEN Sl'ACE ANP TRAILS C()MMITrEE PROPERTY ANALYSIS
(AS OF JANVARV 28, 2008 ... n,w Information In ltullt!#)
,~, ... ,
,_,_
Oil
C!1>"11t1Ui(IO
or Mt"ff
M11111!Ali
~).~.~,.,,~
u
1•1•uJjfrl~ N
1• .... 1~1t1;,., t!I. ;.' 'iii"~--,.
1>1,1in1;1~ttla Vcir
l'onl!I
[14'
-,I
•jj,i~~~!t,;,/.fi,;;,\lljil,l!,1..,_1o ii -1$ DrQdltlda P!'Oa 'Vd
~-~, .... ~ ~
Id ♦r;,,r, Prop,irtht, ,(3)
'"'A,
AOt'lllllCI .
<•Pfi"'lhlllltt)
161,Wl'lill
I ICl'll
~·
31,f3acr,$
. ~~~V4ffiijllf,,~l•~•!Ml<ill~,,~~ ~~'ji 1-~-~~~~~~,t:;' ~"'"""'W#Of!l~~'~...:!W\ , ◄ I I I l
Aild1 Opt11 !pact Ue11111flt1 HMI
to Cit)' 8)'at4iKRI
-· NQ YllA ., 0008ill'Vlld()II
would allow now tllko
~rmlt for v•rnitl pool
Mp11cioa,
-~1,•.ll,;~~ -~
Ne> , Yes -(.IOll•rtrvutlon
' would 1n11l11taln tnke
p111rm It r,,r Bt'Odltteft,
..,...,, 1/ ··~
,No :..pr;;putltta f • .. Cf!1tt,rl>atlon
nlrffid)l d11l1n111td HJUMI({ p,ovlt/11
()pm Spf!;CI t1;aH«t1,,,,;a1 for
H>d~ltf#dl
A411•'f 'tlli (i'J Qftf I f.i1111d t/1t Conflict•
Rtlm Mltl&allou
Ci,dlt
Wllih,1 hller
St1tq11
., ,.,.
""' llltlltJJ,
a
,r,;~~~l~~~.~~"11" IN , .... fjf ...,,.•-.j
No No ... prQptri'y Ii
~lrtl'ldY:'1(.>nJr.itvcd,
No Yes
-""~~ r· "" ·"'l11a. .~. -.~ .. .,..,,,..,.1 I t • .. -jJW~ r, -IJ···""· .... "'"1" ._..., I
No Na p proporty 1$
ahtlid)' .ce11~tved,
Ne Ve~
l~~ ... ,.r-,r,"""'1 ~"1<-h ~,..,-~II:-.~ ~ i.: ........ ~ i,loo~_ ~f.JIU .... J
, fHJtentl(t( /M
Wtlonill ttffll 'otlte ,wrth
·-
No ... proµ#,p 4r
(l/t,ddp t/48/flltl:llltl
0/HH l,xr" ill
OinllMI l ftm
Pottlftlql 11,t,fawt
tnA,tpn~
upprro11al,
/'l(J
\f1
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee
Dear Tomorrow Committee members.
I have a few short stories about sustainability.
Battery Leaf Blowers
2 cycle leaf blowers were banned a few years ago but are still being used by our
city subcontractors on our public facilities daily. While the deadline for
replacement seems to get extended annually why should we in Carlsbad be
lagging in insisting our subcontractors use quieter and carbon saving battery
powered leaf blowers and lawnmowers?
Microgrids.
Several years ago I owned a real estate office in Carlsbad Village at the corner of
Grand and State Street in leased space. ( Most commercial tenants are in leased
space and 40% of residential Carlsbad citizens also )The building had old
infrastructure and a main electrical connection running across the roof. Other
power availability ran across other landowner’s properties and they refused and
easement for additional power from SDG&E. We needed upgraded tenants to
draw more foot traffic and more electrical power was needed.
I was a long term tenant but has changed suites every few years and each had a
separate electric meter. I added solar panels to my system at my expense and the
landlord added a system to a vacant suites electric meter box that SDG&E had
declined to upgrade substantially without a new, larger capacity service to the
whole building. This allowed a restaurant to open in that spot increasing foot
traffic and business for all of us.
A microgrid was born.
Most tenants would not do this with just a 5 year lease and since most landlords
do not pay the utility bill we are behind on public policy and incentives to create
microgrids such as this. It cost the city nothing and was permitted but not
encouraged.
Natural Gas
I eat lunch at Papagayo on Carlsbad Village Drive in the village a couple of times a
month and last year, while the State of California was discussing not allowing
natural gas service to residential homes, I noticed the gas service being upgraded
to a larger pipe and meter. I figured they were adding natural gas connections to
minimize the cost and labor of their many gas heaters.
A few months later I see this huge natural gas fire pit, which serves no one for
hear but is advertising and ambiance. While the City Council discusses banning
gas connections in new homes, SDG&E and our city staff is issuing an permit to
inefficiently use or waste natural gas when electric fireplaces are readily available.
I recently removed a natural gas with ceramic log fireplace from my home as it
was an inefficient, carbon spewing device, mostly for ambiance. Business would
be just as good with electric heaters and an electric fireplace ( or a belly dancer ).
I believe all of you have experienced electric space heaters at outdoor restaurants
and perhaps a short delay in converting to them is appropriate. But a new gas
firepit is like burning coal for heat. We don’t allow it and you don’t have to inform
staff not to allow a permit for a coal firepit or heating system.
A robust public policy to support investment in sustainability should and needs to
be recommended by this committee and adopted by the city from top to bottom
so that we thrive in the next 100 years
In order for staff to be aware and on board with our climate action plan, our City
Manager needs to direct them in general and specific ways that we are actually
enforcing it. Merchants won’t choose the electric fireplace, solar panels, and
battery leaf blowers unless we embrace our Climate Action Plan at the staff level.
Please ask the City Manager and City Council to do so in our updated Growth
Management Plan.
Gary Nessim
2987 Highland Drive Carlsbad
garynessim@att.net
1
Jennifer Jesser
From:Don Christiansen <donaldchristiansen@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2023 10:01 AM
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Quality of Life Report
Hello Fellow Carlsbad Tomorrow Committee Members!
Since I will not be attending tonight's meeting I am responding to Frank
Caraglio's suggestions for the Quality of Life report by email. Of the two
titles I prefer Quality of Life Considerations.
That written, my suggestion for a title is: Quality of Life Goals
From my perspective the word Goal ties in very well with our Community
Vision Statement.
All the best,
Don Christiansen
Carlsbad Tomorrow Committee Member
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
1
Jennifer Jesser
From:Diane Nygaard <dnygaard3@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2023 11:47 AM
To:Growth Management Committee
Cc:Eric Lardy
Subject:Comments on Climate Change for Quality of Life Memo
Honorable Chair and Committee
At tonight's meeting, after having been delayed twice, you will be hearing a presentation about
climate action.
This is a complex, global issue that requires action from every level of government. But it is beyond
the capacity of this committee to establish a simple performance standard that would be
meaningful.
But there is a climate emergency.
The City Council recognized that on September 21,2021 when they adopted a Climate Emergency
Resolution. That resolution included thirteen commitments to action.
Carlsbad adopted Climate Emergency:
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
https://records.carlsbadca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=5452629&page=1&dbid=0&
repo=CityofCarls
bad&searchid=91ff7ab3-f3d7-4eeb-ab76-234e3ab7a827
Since adopting this resolution there has been no action plan developed, no reporting on progress,
and clearly no sense of emergency. One of the thirteen commitments was to update the Climate
Action Plan- that has been delayed twice and is still awaiting key data from SANDAG.
Contrast this with the recent resolution declaring a traffic safety emergency. There was a
comprehensive action plan, it became a management priority, and evidence of that commitment is
highly visible from the City Manager's weekly updates to seeing signs all over town saying Slow Down
Carlsbad.
Climate change could have devastating impacts on the Quality of Life in Carlsbad.
Please recognize that in your Quality of Life memo and ask the City Council to take their Climate
Emergency resolution seriously.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Diane Nygaard
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera
To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the
ReplyReply allForward
~ -------------~
~ .____ _ ___.
2
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.